Whenever a new class of eager, dedicated elected officials is ushered onto the San Diego City Council and a new Council president is elected, the community is hopeful and excited that a positive vision of a better future is articulated and implemented. We crave unity and kinship among our leaders to help move our community forward, bound by a common purpose of the public good. We want real democracy, a clean environment and a fair economy. We expect our next Council president to make that a reality.
After all, that is why we devote so much our time and energy to civic engagement, connecting individuals and families with one another, to share common interests and help lift each other up to achieve our hopes and dreams. This is especially true given the unprecedented upheaval at the national level. We know now more than ever that it is up to us at the local level to be the change we seek in our neighborhoods, schools and institutions.
Thus, whoever becomes our new City Council president must adopt a bold vision that preserves our quality of life and ensures all of our friends and neighbors have an opportunity to thrive and succeed, regardless of race, gender identity, sexual orientation, income or immigration status. The pillars of our vision are a set of rights that address our most pressing concerns, ensure all San Diegans are treated with dignity and respect, and propel us forward as a model for all cities to aspire to.
These pillars are:
The right to quality and affordable housing.
The right to peace, safety and justice in all neighborhoods.
We Stand Up for You. Will You Stand Up for Us?
"The stakes are too high to allow ***differences in opinion****, matters of style or even rocky relationships stand in our way."
This quote from the piece seems a tad totalitarian. It you disagree, get out of their way.
When your roof is leaking, you have to fix it. Fixing it costs money. As an individual you have to determine the source of that money. Similar with the public issues - how can we find the funds to fix the roads, house the homeless and facilitate the provision of affordable housing? I, for one, am willing to pay an extra few sheckles for these things (re; "fixing the roof), but the law requires that raising taxes must be done through a public vote. There will be those that ae willing to continue to live with poor roads, an increasing homeless population and housing costs that make it difficult to live here for us and our children, We wil all have to live with the results of votes on these measures, if such are proposed. The problem I have is that no local politician is even proposing that we address these issues through the ballot box. Five cities in California had propositions on the ballot this fall that addressed homelessness. San Diego, which has the largest homeless population per capita of any city in the state (and third or fourth in the country) did not have such a measure. Let's let the public decide if our festering problems should be addressed through increased funding (i.e. increased taxes).
@bgetzel --Too busy trying to get a convadium-thingy passed for the Chargers. All about priorities.
@bgetzel Don't leave us hanging here. Which are the five Ca;lifornia cities that had ballot propositions to deal with homelessness, and how did they turn out?
Instead of the right to compete we now what the right of results regardless of an individual's effort / motivation. The entity that will provide these results is the government. The same government that runs the DMV, IRS, Border Patrol and our Social Security Administration is going to provide you with a lifestyle, sounds good huh?
I noticed Richard Barrera of the San Diego Unified School district signed on endorsing this, Dick why did you vote for a construction labor deal on school projects that denies local state approved non-union apprentices the opportunity to work? Dick, are you saying the well being of "undocumented immigrants" is a higher priority than local US citizens? Dick, when speaking of a quality of life and the opportunity to achieve did you mean everyone except those that have committed the crime of choosing to work non-union?
Ah, I see another entity that supposedly represents "the people," The Building Trades Union. Perhaps the title of this article should be changed, I can think of a few different titles, how about "Fairness and equality for all as long as you're paying union dues?"
"Progressives," nope, just another special interest movement using catch phrases and slogans to promote a movement that penalizes the motivated to subsidize the entitled.
The idea of rights has changed over the centuries. The bill of rights refers to actions nobody can prevent you from doing, like speaking, believing in religion etc. Other people may not appreciate what other people believe, but they cant force someone to think differently. This is not controversial.
Now the term Rights has been conflated with Wants and needs. Nothing wrong with wanting products or services, but it's quite debatable if one person should be required to pay for other people's housing and transportation. Obligations imposed on one group should not be considered another group's right.
@Bill Bradshaw And conservatives are reluctant to explain how to break the cycle of poverty.
@Sean M Amen! Everyone has the right to quality and affordable housing, quality heath care, peace, safety, justice and the American Way, etc., etc.
And, by the way, “Hooray for Unity”.
The question, of course, is “who pays for this stuff”. Progressives are long on lofty goals and a bit short on details. If you want the taxpayers to subsidize this stuff, say so and indicate how you intend to bring this about.
Mission creep on steroids.
Bill is right.
"The question, of course, is “who pays for this stuff”. Progressives are long on lofty goals and a bit short on details. If you want the taxpayers to subsidize this stuff, say so and indicate how you intend to bring this about."
@Derek Hofmann @Bill Bradshaw I thunk I just got accused of being a conservative, so here goes: The so-called "cycle of poverty" is an intellectual construct that puts the burden of getting off the poverty train on "society", not the individual. It doesn't work. I don't feel I have anything to explain. I'll tell you a couple of things I believe hinder individuals getting steady work, which is the key to them breaking their personal cycle of poverty:
1. Minimum wage laws that encourage small businesses to automate rather than hire inexperienced or flawed workers, like, e.g., ex-cons or people with severe disabilities.
2. Mandatory pay rules like the one the legislature just passed that require farm workers be paid premium pay for any work over 8 hours in a day, regardless of how many hours are worked in a week. This is one of Lorena Gonzalez' great "achievements"but she must have neglected talking to farmers about automation already available to reduce the number of workers needed on farms.
@Bill Bradshaw "The so-called "cycle of poverty" is an intellectual construct that puts the burden of getting off the poverty train on "society", not the individual."
Did you know that poverty places a greater cognitive burden on the poor than the wealthy? Here's proof: http://www.citylab.com/work/2013/08/how-poverty-taxes-brain/6716/
So if you believe that we should all play on a level playing field, then logically you must also agree that society must share the burden of breaking the cycle of poverty.
@Bill Bradshaw Some of those rights are contradictory, you can have higher wages or affordable childcare, but not both. The authors' lament about affordable housing seems disingenuous because they support rules and restrictions that make it more expensive to build or own homes, keeping housing scarce and expensive. The UT's piece on expediting affordable housing construction points out the costs and delays associated with the citys environmental review process.
There is no limit to what people want and need and there is no limit to rights.