We’ve decided to include all our efforts to understand the 2016 election under the banner of San Diego Decides. As part of that, I’ll be writing a biweekly look at what’s happening in the races facing San Diego voters in 2016. It’ll include new reporting, follow-ups on bigger stories and a round-up of other coverage of local races. To get the complete picture of the local election landscape, make sure you also check out the San Diego Decides podcast, hosted by Sara Libby and Ry Rivard. — Andrew Keatts
After taking heat for receiving support from Republicans in general, District 3 City Council candidate Anthony Bernal is now being called out for one donation in particular.
Former San Diego Union-Tribune owner, prolific developer and Prop. 8 financier Doug Manchester and his wife made maximum donations to Bernal, a Democrat.
In March, a former Democratic Party official said Republicans were stealthily taking over the district by supporting Bernal over the party’s favored candidate, Chris Ward. (Bernal shot back in an op-ed for us that there’s nothing unusual about political candidates taking donations from across the aisle.)
District 3, which includes downtown but also the neighborhoods surrounding Balboa Park like Hillcrest, is home to the city’s organized LGBT community. It’s been represented by an openly gay politician since Christine Kehoe won in 1993, becoming San Diego’s first openly gay elected official.
We Stand Up for You. Will You Stand Up for Us?
From Mr Heiskala:
"So we should look at providing incentives for developers to provide transit passes to residents, or to build electric vehicle charging stations or car-sharing for residents, _in exchange for current parking requirements_. If you’re building a new apartment, parking requirements are prohibitively expensive."
I really don't understand how allowing developers to build without providing parking is the "progressive" position. Nothing could be more pro-developer than that, at the cost of the quality of life of the community around that development.
And I say this as someone who is in favor of high density and public transit.
Allowing developers to build without providing parking is just allowing them to externalize this cost, giving the developer greater profits and society more costs.
Brian — RE: The quote you posted
We are being enindated by Pro-Developers that have and continue to fund a number of Org.'s that are together pushing "less parking" because it means huge additional profits for these same Developers.
The rationale includes some of these talking points: People will should use mass transit not personal vehicles, Lower income people will not own cars or Bicycling is healthy for you and good for the environment.
What is not mentioned is that designing for that what is good for the 30 something crowd may be great for local businesses like pubs and restaurants, it is not so wonderful for all those that cannot or choose not to, ride a bicycle because they have other needs that using a bicycle or even an electric bicycle will not statisfy.
SD's elected Leaders are putting what is good for Developers far ahead of what is good for residents, while at the same time telling us that we must accept far more Density because our City needs more "affordable housing." Almost all housing that is being built is either for rent or lease, which will guarantee the Developer a very long income stream because they will raise their rents often. The few units being built for sale will be sold at "market rates" or said another way for as much as the market will bear.
Couple the above with the push by the City to increase the zoning to allow more units to be built on the same amount of ground by building more units per floor and also adding more floors per project. This is why the real estate market is so hot, especially in amid-City where property is less expensive than many other parts of SD.
The truth is that these same elected Leaders refuse to enact zoning requirements that would help reduce our Low and Low-Moderate income housing shortage (as determined by percentage of average income for the area). They could do this by requiring that a certain percentage of ALL NEW CONSTRUCTION be long term rent restricted Low and Low-Moderate income housing units. This would also help insure that entry level housing is spread evenly around the City instead of putting most of it in just in a few areas, like almid-City!
I think the question to ask is WHY does Manchester support Bernal? Obviously not because they share the same views about gay marriage... but what policies that they do agree on should we be interrogating? Arguing over whether Bernal is anti-LGBT is pointless (he's not). What should other issue should we looking at more closely to see if it aligns with liberal ideals?
JC — I agree, there is so much more to talk about in the CD3 race that it is sad that VOSD focuses on the LGBT issue which tends to focus the discussion upon a minor (to me) issue, instead of all the BIG ISSUES we are faced with.
We need to hear what Candidates have to say about all the other important issues like:
VOSD needs to provide a forum that allows voters to hear from each Candidate, about how they will better serve CD3 residents than their opponents, instead "political commentary."
Consider Changing From Being Reactive To Being Pro-Active
Suggestion: Please consider providing both an "Issues & Answers" segment followed by a "Rebuttal & Replies" segment two days later. This would allow you pose a detailed question and then provide equal space for each candidate to respond with their Answer. Then each Candidate (and readers) could learn what is being suggested by each Candidate and ask them specific questions. Two days later, the Candidates would be given another chance to reply to both the other Candidates and the readers comments. I believe that this format would transform the Political process from what it is now, which is akin to a popularity contest, to something far more informative since both the Candidates and the voters could take part in the debate process.
The Political Party that each Candidate is running in, is at this stage of the "election" far less important (to me and many others) than what exactly these Candidates will commit to doing if elected.
San Diego voters have been promised much by those running for Office by the last 3 that were elected in CD3 but what we have received has been far less as "time and circumstance" has keep our elected Leaders from fulfilling their campaign promises to voters.
I'd like to see the Candidates commit to refunding their Salaries if certain things are not accomplished during each of their years in Office. If that sounds "harsh" then consider how voters feel when they vote for a Candidate that then does not fulfill their campaign promises, which was the only reason they got elected!
My 6 demands for better Government are simple:
1) Work hard to make San Diego a better place to live for the majority of our voters (disregarding their political party) instead of just the wealthy few.
2) Be a vocal advocate for correcting what is wrong with our City government, no matter whose toes they have to step on.
3) Appoint people to Board positions that will stand up for making San Diego less like it has been in the past, since we have had too many people appointed that have been pushing a particular agenda instead of doing what is best for our City.
4) Be unafraid of upsetting the Big's (Utilities, Water, Unions, Developers, Ultra Wealthy and the others) that want to "run" San Diego.
5) Be willing to kick some butt at City Hall to make our City Government not only more transparent but also more user friendly.
6) Grant equal access to both Big Donors and regular voters before making any decisions that affect all San Diego residents.
Step up and earn my vote...
I agree with Founder about organizing the comments.
On the District 3 race, one has to state the obvious: there are no Republicans on the ballot for that Council seat. That doesn't mean that Republicans who live or have businesses in District 3 ought to be disenfranchised and indifferent to whomever the Democrats choose to elect. Council members in general have two functions: policymaking and constituent service. I'm not going to get either Chris or Anthony to share my policy views, but if I think one or the other is going to be more effective at getting my potholes fixed and seeing that the water and sewer lines are maintained, I have a preference.
@Richard Gorin — Thanks for joining the discussion.
See my expanded reply at the top.
It would be far better if each segment from above had its own comments section so that those that read the different segments can also easily read each of the comments that are posted about that segment!
==> As far as Bernal vs Ward in CD3, what is important to many is where the two candidates stand on important topics, not just on LGBT support issues. To those that think that the biggest LGBT supporter should run CD3, I would mention that to many others, many issues like Density, Infrastructure, Quality of Life, Crime, Taxes and/or Financing (yet another) $tadium are all just as important, if not more important to many living in CD3.
It is past time for all voters in San Diego to just be happy accepting candidate "prepared statements."
VOSD should start asking the Candidates questions that we submit, so that VOSD can post the answers so that all of us can become more informed about these Candidates. That way, those Candidates that choose not to answer these questions, will sooner or later have to explain why they were unable to answer when those running against them could.
This will help the political process in San Diego and position VOSD as a more credible news outlet.