I've heard San Diego Mayor Jerry Sanders give speeches now for four years. There are few people more likable and few people who could so endear themselves to a group of people after saying the word "erection" instead of "election."
He's a genuinely good man, who I believe is sincere.
But this was the most divisive, most insulting, most unenlightened speech I've ever heard him give. Whoever it was who thought it was a good idea to try to shame San Diegans into being great rather than inspire them should never work in the speechwriting business again.
And yes, that's exactly what his speech was: I'm the mayor. Don't agree with me? You're a backward, short-sighted blogger (yes, he went after the "bloggers") who would have opposed the piping of water to the city when that was first proposed. Oh and you like inertia -- physics nerd.
Ulgh. I can go on, and will, but let's do this point by point.
The mayor started off, of course, in victim mode. Lately this has been his thing: always the victim. Whether it's the state, or the economy, or the unions, or the bloggers or the "defeatists," he -- and, therefore, we -- are being pummeled by things we can't control. There's really nothing as refreshing as a politician working hard to help you feel sorry for yourself and articulate your complaints.
It was a tone that set the mood:
I know these are tough times. We’re all trying to spend less money, use less water, and put something aside for the future. I feel for our city and what its families are going through.
Just last week I had the privilege to lobby on our behalf in Washington, D.C., where they can solve all of their budget problems by simply printing more money.
I know, those feds. Total losers. But...
We’re working hard to get some of that money for jobs and economic development in San Diego.
Yes, those really were back-to-back lines, essentially saying: Those irresponsible freaks can't manage money, so they're printing it. Don't worry, I've got my hand in the mix.
I'm hoping it was a joke that landed poorly. Otherwise it's just a really weird way to insult someone. Like a minister preaching at a thief and then asking for a cut.
And I’ve been defending our city in Sacramento, where their answer to budget problems is to steal our money -- and expect us to be grateful they didn’t steal more.
Victim. Goal? Deflect anger. Accomplished. He went on -- more whining, yes, but something to be proud of!
Well, in the 12 months since the stock market nose-dived, every city and county in America has been hit by the double whammy of plummeting revenues and skyrocketing pension costs due to investment losses.
So light bulbs are going on across the country.
And as they go on, publications like The New York Times and Governing magazine have reported that San Diego was already a bright spot.
This claim that San Diego is a model for fiscal recovery for the nation is based on this brief and this bizarre story.
The governing magazine story was a five-paragraph brief that concluded the city still had problems but was more stable. Yes, truly a light bulb confirming a dramatic recovery. The second story was just plain weird.
The truth is the massive pension liabilities the mayor inherited are only getting worse. He's neither raised more revenues nor cut costs in a way that changes that dynamic. The city's infrastructure is being neglected, and small governments -- Maintenance Assessment Districts and Business Improvement Districts -- are arising across the city to pick up where the City Hall is leaving off.
The mayor and City Council have done so little, in fact, to deal with its long-term liabilities that we're about to face the largest pension bill in the city's history. And before anyone tells you that this is a "black swan" investment year -- a calamitous storm no one could have prepared for -- go back and read the Pension Reform Committee's final report from 2004. Better yet, go read the city's own financial disclosures and reports in 2003 and 2004.
I remember them well. I remember looking at them and noting that it would be 2009. In 2009, they said, when we'd face a pension bill as high as $200 million unless city officials changed something drastic.
Unless we raised taxes or made drastic cuts, we'd face a storm we could not imagine.
Hear that wind? A $200 million pension bill was unthinkable. Now we're about to eat it.
This is why the former mayor resigned. And it's why we hired the current mayor -- to help make the tough decisions needed to either pay for this or get rid of this liability.
He has not made anything close to decisions like that.
Which makes his next statement so difficult to swallow:
The secret to our success is simple: We don’t run from hard work, or from tough decisions.
True, nobody's running. They just never faced them in the first place. The mayor promised during his campaign that he would turn to bankruptcy if he couldn't change the trajectory the city was on through negotiations. At the very least, bankruptcy was a threat that would provoke these kinds of deliberations.
And if he didn't want to do bankruptcy and challenge employee compensation, then he was obligated to find new revenues. Yet he's never once even suggested what would have to happen before he raised any tax in the city. Hasn't made any significant cuts, refuses to raise revenues, discards bankruptcy as an option. What tough decision are we talking about?
He cites a "record of budget cuts" and the actual fact that they were able to pass a balanced budget last year. But that wasn't a tough decision -- there were no contentious service cuts.
Now, to be clear, the mayor and City Council did impose 6 percent compensation cuts on the city's blue collar and police union workers. The other two unions agreed to similar cuts. This was a tough decision, no doubt. But it was like pouring a pitcher of water into an empty swimming pool. The trajectory of the city is accelerating far too rapidly downward.
Sanders was hired to change this.
But remember, he's the victim here:
I feel like the guy who wins a pie-eating contest, only to learn that First Prize is more pie.
That pie has been there the whole time, J-Man. You told everyone you saw it and would deal with it.
As I mentioned, when the annual required contribution to the city's pension system comes due in July 2011, it will be the largest pension payment in city history.
There has been considerable speculation about what the size of that payment will be, but whatever the amount, let me be clear:
We will make our full pension payment, to the penny.
The Mayor and City Council do not determine the amount of the payment, nor should we.
Of course, they don't determine the size of the bill. But the mayor got an actuary and empanelled a private task force to make the case for a lower bill. And the pension board's former chairman said the city would simply be insolvent unless the pension system tweaked the rules and lowered the bill.
They say this is necessary to deal with an unprecedented financial crisis. This is, of course, the exact same rationale that the city used in 2002 when deciding to, well, I'll let him throw the previous mayor and City Council under the bus:
Nor should we repeat the mistakes of our predecessors and shortchange the retirement system so we can avoid making tough decisions.
Finally, we get to the capital projects. As I predicted before the speech, the mayor would tell us to build a new main library, a new City Hall and a new Convention Center. And, as predicted, he would decline to talk about the sacrifices needed to build these things.
What I didn't expect was that he would add, so forcefully, a litany of insults about those who had questions or opposed the plans.
Virtually every major project in the city has encountered opposition from groups who have no faith in tomorrow, who view all progress with suspicion, who don’t believe we deserve to be a great city.
If these people had their way, we’d still be riding ferries to Coronado.
There wouldn’t be a Mission Bay, or a trolley system, or a vibrant downtown with homes, shops and restaurants.
We might not even have clean water piped into our homes.
For the record, I'm a huge fan of water. It's key to my whole plan to stay alive.
Again, this was the most belligerent, divisive speech I've ever heard the mayor make -- and I'm including the campaign attacks he would will himself to make.
So if you don't believe that the city's highest priority is a Convention Center or that the best way to connect people to the internet is to construct a massive building than you don't want the city to be great?
This is paramount to saying that if you don't support a president's decision, you don't support your country.
There are legitimate and major questions about not only how a new main library would be funded downtown but whether it's the best investment for a city claiming to try to do three things: 1) create a valuable public gathering space; 2) connect people to the internet and; 3) build an architectural marvel for a city devoid of them.
But put all that aside and let's look at his speech:
In the case of the new Central Library, the funds for construction would come from sources that could not be used for daily operations, or for any other library project or branch improvements.
Let me repeat that: The funds for its construction would come from sources that could not be used for any other library project or, for that matter, any other City service.
There's no way you could word this in a more disingenuous way. No, the $80 million earmarked for the new main library could not be used for daily operations of other libraries. And it could not be used for other library projects. And, it could not be used for any other city service.
It has to be spent downtown.
But it could build sewer lines, fire stations, roads, sidewalks and on and on and on.
In fact, drum roll, the $80 million could also be used for the project the mayor declared was supported by a "virtually unanimous" (isn't it either unanimous or not?) unnamed group: the expansion of the Convention Center.
Which brings us to the end of the speech: Yet another real-time contradiction. I could hardly listen.
Remember, this is the mayor so averse to taxes -- the guy who wants us to step up and do something bold but refuses to even consider that these bold choices would require bold sacrifices.
And again, it's everyone else that is the coward, not him. He's the victim:
“If we do expand, who will pay for it?”
Whenever we ask that question, no one raises a hand.
Poor mayor. He goes on:
The people who don't recognize these opportunities -- or are scared off by any hint of dissension -- or are waiting for a consensus to develop among the bloggers -- often wake up one day to realize that their opportunity has passed them by.
Yes, San Diego, your opportunity to have everything you want without having to sacrifice anything to get it is passing you by. Soon, you'll have to sacrifice.
The city is fundamentally unbalanced. This will have to change someday through higher taxes or a realignment of employee compensation. In fact, both will probably have to occur and we should have a leader willing to talk about it -- not help us whine about it.
A better approach would have been to explain in the Mayor's view "why" these projects are good for everyone--not just the special interest groups promoting them. What are the benefits that justify making these projects higher priorities than others in the Mayor's view? There may be a good case to be made for each of these projects but it hasn't been made very well by the Mayor. In short, where was the leadership? One of the primary roles of a leader is to educate. Leadership isn't, as SLOP points out, berating/attacking others who don't share the vision. But then this is the new politics as practiced at all levels of government. Sadly, the staff of the Mayor failed him (again). However, ultimately, the Mayor signs off on what he is being told to say, so the responsibility is really his.
When you watch the History channel you realize that men in power have always wanted to build monuments to themselves. The pyramids were built with slave labor. The Kings dating back thousands of years had great wealth and made sure the servants were taken care of. Another promise to the slaves back then included the promise of eternal life. Jerry Sanders had no gold, no promise of eternal life, and he can not take care of the workers.
Could go 'point-by-point' on how shallow, self-serving and petty this commentary is, but that would be shallow, self-serving and petty. I admit, I'm a big fan of the Mayor, but I don't read much criticism of content so much as style. And as for the substance, he makes some good points. I do remember the nay-sayers chaffing about the cost of Petco Park, the first Convention Center expansion, NTC redevelopment, even the Gateway of the America's shopping center project that pumped in $200mm into the economy and is still shedding revenues for the San Ysidro School District. And yet, all of these have improved our quality of life and moved our region forward. My one complaint - wish I could drive still drive onto a ferry to get to Coronado. Sigh...
You're right. You read for style rather than substance, as your examples show. Those projects you're so proud of are LOSING money, especially the ballpark fiasco and NTC. They've destroyed value, hurting our quality of life, and leaving our region behind while benefiting only well-connected developers like John Moores and McMillan. Meanwhile our decrepit infrastructure continues to decay, but the boosters ignore reality and claim all we need to do is waste yet more money on white elephant projects that benefit them personally, and everything will be fine. Baloney! Take your blinders off.
Lord love you for your sunny mayoral disposition, Mr. O'Sullivan, but the Great Wall of the Convention Center, Petco Park, Liberty Station and all those ugly empty condos downtown have not done a thing to improve my quality of life. I will concede, however, that it is fun to go with out-of-town visitors to the Neiman-Marcus outlet down near the Border. if Neiman is part of the Gateway Center you mentioned, then that project has been a personal plus.
Yep. It's the bloggers who created the pension deficit. It's "naysayers" who built a ballpark for a billionaire. It's "obstructionists" who failed to maintain our infrastructure. It's the opposition who are to blame for all our problems, those folks who warned us that stadiums aren't free and that CCDC/SEDC are mismanaged deserve all the blame for what's wrong in our city. Yes, if we'd just all shut up and stop paying attention, everything would be wonderful in San Diego. You should be ashamed of yourself, Scott, for daring to question the omniscience, omnibenevolence, and omnipotence of the Mayor.
"He's a genuinely good man, who I believe is sincere." The only thing Sanders is sincere about is to make sure those that funded his election is paid back regardless of the cost to "All of the City employees." Again let me say, investigate Sanders tenure as a cop, his promotions and how he achieved them. I sincerely believe our Mayor wants to blame anyone else for San Diego's problems and expects someone else to come up with a solution to fix them. Okay! Mayor Sanders, Taxes need to be raised, the City Council Officials should be a part time position and their salaries be should be adjusted to reflect their partime status. The 80 million you plan to spend on the convention-center-or is better spent for new sewer lines and more fire stations.
.................... me, after studying the convention center espansion in depth, it is far from clear that an expanion would be as dynamic and profitable as assumed. The land will still be there in 5 years and perhaps "the great recession" will be over and we will know whether or not the world will still attend conventions.
I finally figured it out! Dr. Michael Hfuhruhurr link has taken Jerry's brain and replaced it with Susan Golding's. From that perspective EVERYTHING is starting to make a lot more sense.
I was going to go with the Young Frankenstein reference, but this one works too. Seriously tho, I think this speech reinforces concerns some have that Sanders is teetering on that edge of mental fitness for the job. He has been backed into a corner by his own inability to lead and solve problems and all he can do now is snarl at those who have legitimate issues with his approach and priorities. He refuses to engage the average citizen in any meaningful way, He demeans those that disagree with him. He thumbs his nose at the council and their representation of the public. He is a coward and a bully and his time as mayor cannot end soon enough for the good of San Diego.
Sanders has never REALLY led anything... decisions are made by committee and ideas floated like test balloons before seeing the light of day. This guy takes the credit where he can and blames bloggers for failures. What a nice man?
Good insight and analysis of the mayor's diatribe. The mayor has not changed since he was chief. His famous line as chief, "The train is leaving the station; you are either on it or you are left behind" as he chastised officers who challenged his dumbing down police work. The three projects being planned (Conventions Center, Downtown Library and New City Hall) are all going to pay for themselves according to the mayor. Can someone in the mayors office explain this? A library that takes in enough income to pay for itself? A City Hall Building that will generate funding as a building that will pay for it being built? My stomach is starting to hurt form laughing so hard at those who actually swallowed this load of gaga. Expanding the Convention Center will generate a BILLION DOLLARS? Over what period of time? My life time? My children's, children's, children?
Jerry Sanders has decided to be the next Dick Murphy. Murphy gave speeches written by his handlers and didn't think for himself until it was too late, and he was forced to resign in disgrace. Now Sanders is letting Tom Sheppard and the downtown developers do his thinking for him, and tying himself to a convention center expansion that is sinking quickly, since local hotels and restaurants will never agree to tax themselves further to pay for his pipe dream. The only difference between Murphy and Sanders is that Jerry will be termed limited out of office before all his chickens come home to roost and drive the city even further into bankruptcy. Classic example of political IBG (I'll be gone) thinking on his part. If Jerry wants a legacy, he could help the Coastal Commission make the Port build the oval park at the foot of Broadway.
This unlobotomized naysaying critic wonders about Mayor Jerry Sanders' goodness and sincerity and the comparison to naive Mayor Dick Murphy, who was at least smart enough to recognize the city's and his own disastrous situation and who had the courage and decency to resign from office. Jerry Sanders, on the other hand, succumbed to flattery from the usual entrenched power players who paid Tom Shepard to orchestrate brilliantly the Sanders' mayoral candidacy as an avuncular, benign, positive-thinker who would save us from ourselves. He seemed so "good" and "sincere." Actually, Sanders has been a figurehead for selfish special interests -- including real estate developers, politicians and labor -- whose proxies accomplished the dirty work of governing (remember Ronne Froman, Fred Sainz, Jim Waring?) while allowing Sanders to be our civic cheerleader (or scold.) Sanders' insulting premise is no different from Disney's Thumper: if you can't say something nice, say nothing.
Mr. O'Sullivan, although the area around the ballpark HAS seen great resurgence, the city IS still paying debt service on PETCO Park. Liberty Station WAS given to Corky McMillan Cos. for a song and the city got bupkis - they overbuilt the condo area adding tremendously to traffic in the area before doing any work on the historic center structures - which are still not finished, and neither are the parks they promised. None of the projects you cite have directly affected MY 'quality of life' in any way. And, if you wanna drive onto the ferry to Coronado, ride a bike! Mr. Lewis correctly points out that we who oppose blind development are the ones who have our eyes open. If you are still a "fan big of the Mayor," you simply aren't paying attention.
None are so blind who will not see. JS is really wacky in this speech about spending money that the city does not have. Of course his multiple pensions are safe. Instead of a car ferry to Coronado I would appreciate driving on streets without potholes. Oops that is part of the "sacrifice" we are called up to do. What do the people in the city sponsored $100,000 plus retirement club have to give up ? I forget. I am sure someone from Fire or Police will refresh my memory.
If the comments here were based in fact rather than angry rants, I might be persuaded. The same cabal (watcher, fred, et al) feed on their outrage without making clear, specific recommendations about how/what they think are the solutions. Voice continues to be a chalk board for the same tired voices who feel wronged but offer little substantive in terms of policy proposals to move the city forward. It is easy to be an armchair critic, much harder to put yourself out there with proposed solutions. So Scott Lewis...how would you solve the problems you have outlined. I agree with many of your concerns but your rant was in many ways a knee-jerk reaction to the Mayor. Offer your proposed solutions!
You might consider reviewing some of Mr. Lewis' previous commentaries. He did publish a proposal on how the city might make SPECIFIC headway in resolving the pension underfunding. Until the funding of that obligation is resolved, everything else is a "Dusty Springfield." Meaning, as the song goes, "Wishing and Hoping." More pointedly, numerous proposals have been mentioned for the solving of the city's structural financial issues. The folks running the city just don't want hear, or respond to them.
You criticize Scott Lewis and others who are incredulous at the lack of reality-testing and responsibility coming from City Hall and City Council. I'm not sure that's called an "ad hominem" argument, but it is a common tactic for changing the subject to avoid the truth -- in this instance, the Mayor's pathetic substanceless speech on city finance. It is the MAYOR'S JOB -- not Scott's -- to find solutions, or even approaches to solutions, to longstanding problems in this city. In this quest, Sanders should be reaching out to the community -- not shutting it out by continuing to carry water for the special interests who elected him with their money, and by continuing to claim that pie-in-the-sky capital projects can be completed with an empty treasury and a failing infrastructure. Sanders' fiscal address the other day assures his place on the Peter Principle poster.
Your response is exactly what I and others have come to expect from the comments section in Voice -- petty school-yard insults rather than a civil dialogue. I think it is time for Voice to start moderating the comments section or loose the opportunity to have a real civic dialogue. Newspapers edit letters...maybe Voice should reject comments that are primarily driven by an inability to use the english language in a constructive manner. Sticks and stones....
SDBuster, it seems to me that you can dish it out, but you can't take it. I was unaware of making "petty school-yard insults:" I thought I was representing an arguable point of view. Ditto for Watcher, Fred, Ian, Pat Flannery, jorgeelgato and others. Ours certainly may be the dark points of view of naysayers -- nay to constructing new city halls, convention centers and schoobraries when the City is going broke -- but it is nonetheless a considered opinion. You want the voice should be more like the old U-T and "edit" out all the news of dissent on a pretext? I'd be cautious urging censorship for others' contributions, lest the editors wield their red pencils on submissions from people like yourself who misspell the word "lose." You asked for my "reasoned alternative suggestion?" FIRST FIX INFRASTRUCTURE AND THEN BEAUTIFY OUR CITY STREETS, BEACHES AND PARKS.
The central problem with Scott's analysis is his belief the mayor is a nice guy. He's not. Just look at the people he hangs out with: Julie Dubick, Jim Waring, Marcela Escobar-Eck, Bill Evans, Pete Hekkman. Although each of the foregoing have personal assets which have no doubt made them somewhat successful in a variety contexts, "playing well with others" is not their individual or collective strong suit. Once you accept the mayor's outward affability is just a convenient pose and that his true character can be seen in the company he keeps, his petty diatribe is pretty much what one would expect.
Well, we got what we paid for: A "Charley Brown" type of mayor. Every year, hope springs eternal, before Lucy pulls the football away, and Charlie falls on his face. Nice guys finish last. Can you imagine Mayor Donna Frye sounding like that? We need to try to hold out for the next mayor before anything constructive will occur.
SDbuster: Your comment assumes that everyone agrees with you about that the city needs in the way of "solutions" and what it might take to "move the city forward". Not everybody agrees that this city needs to spend another billion dollars or so to further expand the convention center. In fact, the convention center never should have been built in its current location, walling off our bayfront from the rest of downtown. In many people's opinion, a better "solution" might be to tear down the existing wall instead of making it bigger. The point is that not everyone thinks like you, and the downtown developers don't run the show anymore. In order to move this city ahead and solve its problems, we need to focus on digging out of the fiscal holes the city is already in, not dig new holes.
Uhm...not making that assumption in the least. Simply asking for folks like you, who are a regular poster on Voice, and always angry, wronged and pissy, to come up with real solutions rather than a constant stream of venum. It gets old and I would much rather enjoy a good debate on various ideas and suggestions. But alas I may be expected too much from a comment string on a web site but I do find myself ignoring the comments sections because the same posters (you, fed up, trowbridge, fred, etc.) just resort to name calling and making false assumptions about motives rather than simply disagreeing and offering a reasoned alternative suggestion.
"always angry, wronged and pissy" Review your posts, which seem angry, wronged, pissy. And O'Sullivan to a civil commenter--"Hater." What a reasoned reply! I submit that you yourselves have lowered the tone of discourse. Public officials must expect criticism; how do you justify your attacks on private individuals? Their sin is that you don't agree with them. Please submit reasoned replies to their comments about the mayor's desire to splurge when we are awash in debt. Educate us. How does the general public benefit from Petco Park, a Chargers stadium, a convention center? I have reflected and can't see how a dime goes into my pocket. We think it's welfare for developers, the hospitality industry, political insiders. Explain why we are wrong. Is it as Watkins says--we are like Rob Davis, just jealous of the rich? I respected Republicans as fiscal conservatives. What happened?
SDBuster: Here is one example of the kind of solution you're asking for. Instead of violating the California Coastal Act and its own Master Plan, why doesn't the Port follow through in its master plan and build the two acre oval public park at the foot of Broadway that was promised to the public years ago, and make the Broadway Pier an open public community gathering place as promised in its own Port Master Plan. The new cruise ship terminal being proposed for Broadway Pier could be reconfigured to serve two cruise ships and moved to the B Street Pier, as provided for in the master plan. Instead, Steve Cushman the the Port staff have given away the farm to Carnival Cruiselines, even when that required them to violate their own master plan and state law. Why do the fat cats always get catered to and the public's needs ignored? If that's too angry for you, sorry.
The level of discourse here is higher than other local news outlets. Go to the U-T--you will find hatefulness, racism, name calling.SDBuster's seems to resent criticism of the mayor and his power base. Both editorial and reader comments have offered many concrete suggestions for change. These comments are reasonably civil, if critical, and I can see no valid argument for censoring them, nor of with opposing views. My personal belief is that San Diego has been run primarily for special interests during the 31 years I have lived here. It is time to put away the grand schemes that benefit the few and focus on maintaining existing infrastructure. The average citizen will derive little or no personal benefit from proposed capital projects; they benefit the few. The bayfront was better before the walls started going up. Soon you'll have to rent a room to enjoy it.
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
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
PRINT 
E-MAIL STORY
SHARE
FACEBOOK
REDDIT
NEWSVINE
DIGG
DEL.ICIO.US
BLINKLIST
Don't want to miss a story? Want to be the first to know about breaking news? Sign up now.