By Tara Whitty, La JollaThursday, May 15, 2008 | I was struck by a quote from David Washburn's May 15 story about the race for City Council District 1 and the debate about the seal colony at the Children's Pool.
"Cohabitation doesn't equate," said Merrifield, a 48-year-old owner of a nationwide lock and key distributing business. "Cohabitation means the seals win."'
So what if "the seals win"? This "battle" of people versus seals at Children's Pool is ridiculous to the point of being an embarrassment to La Jolla and San Diego.
It should be obvious that children enjoy seeing the seals, and that there are plenty of other beaches nearby for people to use. This is not a battle being fought in the name of children -- it is being fought by small-minded people who, for some unfathomable reason, have chosen this insignificant issue to focus on.
Why are we allowing unreasonable people to demand that we spend money to disturb the seal colony that so many people enjoy visiting? Why are the District 1 candidates going along with this skewed logic? After reading Washburn's story, I can't help but be disappointed by the position of all three candidates, particularly Phil Thalheimer and Marshall Merrifield.
By Jim Dodd, ClairemontWednesday, May 14, 2008 | I read the Steve Francis campaign mailer on the environment, and sent him the following email. I found it silly at best, and perhaps foolish.
I just read your mailer "Steve Francis: Committed to a Greener San Diego". I have been hoping you would provide some specific examples in your campaign commercials, but this mailer has some really silly elements.
For a small example, the bullet to restore the urban canopy disregards our current water shortage. I know a eucalyptus tree draws in 40 liters of water a day; where will your public-private partnership get that water?
Public transit is a bigger example. The city does not own the local buses (MTS does), nor the taxis (privately owned). The buses are already converted to alternative energy engines (CNG). The "cutting edge rapid transit network" is already here, it consists of cars and our road system. Nothing else can approach their effectiveness and efficiency.
The biggest bit of foolishness is the bullet to fight global warming. Unless you plan to change the solar output of the sun, you are just fooling yourself.
I was hoping to vote for you, but so far it is not looking good.
By Frances O'Neill Zimmerman, La JollaWednesday, May 14, 2008 | A uniquely San Diego voters' guide appeared Tuesday: the Union-Tribune editorially endorsed (almost) everyone and everything I and many other San Diegans oppose. Proposition C (Fox in the Henhouse) and the toll road through Trestles! Opponents of Sherri Lightner, our best hope for City Council from District 1! George George, retired firefighter from fire-ravaged District 5! Marti Emerald, ex-TV consumer rights reporter running in District 7! The U-T is flummoxed by District 3 for some reason, but the best qualified person is Stephen Whitburn! (No mention of Aguirre or Francis, but yes to them both too!) By Scott BarnettTuesday, May 13, 2008 | I have no quarrel with David Washburn's reporting in his recent article on Phil Thalheimer's 2004 Council campaign strategy. I do want to take the opportunity to set some of the record straight.
The article stated:
"T.J. Zane, now the Lincoln Club's executive director, was a consultant for Thalheimer during the early stages of his 2004 run, but quit the campaign over differences with [Scott] Barnett.
"When Barnett came in and made some poor strategic decisions for the campaign, I left," Zane said. "It was perceived that he was anti-development and anti-business."
The facts are this: Zane asked me to come aboard as co-consultant in the late summer of 2003, (soon after I left my position as executive director of the Lincoln Club) because up to that time he had limited experience in running campaigns.
Although I don’t take pride in it, I will take full responsibility for suggesting the "no developer or special interest/lobbyist" contribution strategy. A strategy that was developed only after it was clear that the business establishment, including the Lincoln Club, would not oppose the incumbent, Democrat Scott Peters.
Mr. Zane not only knew of the "anti-establishment" strategy from the beginning, he never objected to it and fully supported it. Mr. Zane stayed with the campaign for several months after it was developed, polled (he helped write and reviewed the polling) and implemented in the form of campaign literature.
Although I do not dispute Mr. Zane left over "differences" with me, the differences were of a more personal nature then political. (There have been rumors that I am occasionally difficult to get along with.) But it all worked out since Mr. Zane is now the executive director of the Lincoln Club where he is doing an excellent job.
Elections are about winning -- and, in fact, Thalheimer forced Councilman Peters to a run-off in 2004 -- a rare event in politics where incumbents don’t lose. But campaigns can also be sordid and unpleasant business, where the desire to win is placed ahead of all other factors.
My lack of stomach for this unbridled focus on winning at all costs is why I chose to "retire" from candidate consulting four years ago, preferring to retreat to crunching numbers on fiscal studies. However, I will happily own-up to my past responsibility in urging on clients positions I believed were in their best interest, even if they were at times unsavory.
But at the same time I feel compelled to set the record straight when others misstate history as it relates to me. By Lani Lutar, Point LomaTuesday, May 13, 2008 | City Councilwoman Donna Frye writes in opposition to Proposition C, "None of the five largest cities in the United States allow their mayor to appoint the city auditor."
She forgot to add the following note, "None of the five largest cities in the United States have been forced by the Securities and Exchange Commission to hire a Monitor to track city's finances n but San Diego has."
As voiceofsandiego.org recently noted, SEC monitor Stanley Keller disagrees with Frye on how the Auditor should be appointed. In February he wrote, "The alternative of appointment by the Mayor, in consultation with the Audit Committee, and confirmation by the City Council, assuming the existence of the other elements of tenure, professional qualifications and reporting responsibilities is most consistent with this (independent audit) model."
Mr. Keller was selected to meet the SEC's high standards because he chaired the American Bar Association's Committee on Federal Regulation of Securities during the height of the Sarbanes-Oxley debate. He also serves as chairman of the ABA Committee on Audit Responses. While Frye routinely claims that the method in Prop. C by which the independent auditor gets named is not "the preferred" method, she is just plain wrong.
Frye believes the audit function should be vested totally under the control of the City Council. She has perhaps been talking to different people than the dozens of citizens I have talked to in my role as president of the San Diego County Taxpayers Association. Most of them are less convinced than Frye that the Council should have unchecked power over the audit function.
Most taxpayers want a balance of power so no one can ever again pull the wool over our eyes n- and that includes the Council.
Donna has won over a disgruntled former City Auditor, John Torell, who opposes Prop. C. However, his positions are somewhat contradictory. The City Council followed the advice he gave in a 2006 report and subsequent voiceofsandiego.org interview. Among his comments, notice the way Prop. C responds to his (then) sound advice,
- Torrell: "In order to effectively carry out the role of the Auditor and Comptroller, the office must be independent or free from the control or influence of others in the normal chain of command."
Prop. C: Upon confirmation by the City Council, the auditor reports exclusively to an independent audit committee on which there are neither mayoral appointees nor any representative of the Mayor's office.
- voiceofsandiego.org, paraphrasing Torell: "He said he would rather the position be appointed to a term of 10 years."
- Prop C: When confirmed by the Council, the auditor is appointed to a term of 10 years.
- voiceofsandiego.org, paraphrasing Torell: "and that the council be able to fire him with a unanimous vote."
- Prop C: The auditor can only be terminated for legal cause, and upon majority recommendation from the independent audit committee and thereafter by a supermajority confirmation of the City Council.
- voiceofsandiego.org paraphrasing Torell: "Another option, he said, would be to have a few council members and some private citizens serve as an audit committee, which would directly supervise the City Auditor's Office."
,
- Prop C: The Audit Committee includes two council members and three qualified public members appointed by the Council, not subject to Mayoral veto.
Mr. Torell now lives in Santa Barbara, not San Diego. Perhaps this is a case of "different latitudes, different attitudes?" By Walt Brewer, Lockport, New YorkSunday, May 11, 2008 | Re: "Enviro Group Settles With Sandag," May 7 2008 Unbelievable! A transit activist group trying to get already transit obsessed SANDAG to build San Diego's way out of congestion with even more meaningless transit! And SANDAG has failed completely to do that for 20 years using more than one-third of the total transportation budget. Transportation isn't the end product, it is a major component of a prosperous economy and preferred lifestyle. So it supports jobs, housing etc, etc, etc, not vice versa. Decades ago people determined the need for persoal transport in autos and rejected wasteful time consuming mass transit.
Do the math. High density transit oriented enclaves will increase energy wasting traffic congestion even if impossibly heroic levels of transit use occur. But I suppose that's OK if the main objective is to let a few live frontier style in the country with few neighbors. By Paula Abney, Torrey HillsMonday, May 12, 2008 | I am responding to the article in voiceofsandiego.org. I am the vice president of the THCC and one of the original organizers of the group. The THCC has successfully won lawsuits against this developer and so has the Delmar Union School District. The issue was in litigation for almost three years and the Planning Board Subcommittee was involved in meetings with this developer for over two years.
Our position has always been to have 350,000 square feet of development on the four lots with 20,000 square feet of retail. Thomas Blake of Coast Income Properties also promised many street improvements to the intersection at Calle Mar de Mariposa and W. Ocean Air as well as street improvements around the school. I was the chair of the Torrey Hills Community Planning Board at the time Mr. Blake came before the Planning Board requesting to do a Community Plan Amendment to do residential multi-family homes on the site with a retail component. At that time, Mr. Blake stated that his project would only use 2800 ADTs (Average Daily Trips) and that additional ADTs that he purchased from Homewood Suites would be eliminated. This was agreeable to the Planning Board since 1725 ADTs were already used by Santarus in this Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ). This would keep the ADTs in line with our community plan and would not increase traffic around the homes and school. Since that original meeting, Mr. Blake has proposed a project that is more than twice his original proposal and he now plans to transfer ADTs from the Homewood Suites site (950) to this location. This will be the largest project that has ever come before the Planning Board.
There are some board members who are not interested in the impacts to the community but are interested in the developer impact fees that the community will get for allowing this development to be approved in order to build a YMCA or a Boys and Girls Club. What they fail to realize is that the same residents who are impacted by the four lots will also be greatly impacted by the YMCA/Boys and Girls Club. This project will impact more than half of the community. Our Community Plan is predominantly low density residential and this project is completely out of scale with the rest of the community and will have enormous impacts around our elementary school.
By Bob Nelson, Bankers HillSunday, May 11, 2008 | Thanks to voiceofsandiego.org and David Washburn for your continued reporting on the important complexities of Proposition C.
As you have observed, the manner in which the city auditor will be appointed is key to the debate. In Mr. Washburn's most recent post he includes a citation from the Association of Local Government Auditors (ALGA.) In their "model legislation" they declare that the auditor should only be appointed by a vote of the people or by the city council.
It is useful to remember the phrase, "consider the source." In this case the source -- ALGA -- is composed of (drumroll)... auditors appointed by their councils/legislatures and elected auditors. Not much surprise what they conclude about the "right" way to do it.
Mr. Washburn also notes that the financial monitor imposed on the city by the Securities and Exchange Commission, Stanley Keller, has the opposite view. This nationally recognized audit expert concludes that Proposition C's more balanced approach -- appointment by the mayor and confirmation by the Council -- is smarter. And, again, consider the source: Mr. Keller is totally independent, has no axe to grind, and has only one job: helping San Diego get it right this time.
By Ian Trowbridge, Mission HillsMonday, May 12, 2008 | The proponents of Proposition C argue an auditor selected by the mayor who also controls the committee with the authority to fire that appointee will be independent.
We need only to look at the recent actions of the Ethics Commission and its executive director to understand how flawed that reasoning is. The ethics commissioners are selected by the mayor who in turn appoint the Ethics Commission executive director. This process is strikingly similar to that proposed for the city auditor in Prop. C.
The Ethics Commission has served a useful purpose in the last few years by recommending closure in loopholes in the city election campaign ordinance and important changes to the lobbying laws.
However, its enforcement of ethics laws, particularly in the last few months, shows how much influence the mayor has this less than independent body. The Ethics Commission has chosen to investigate politically-motivated allegations against the city attorney that are clearly baseless and should have been rejected by the executive director. This investigation has also temporarily blackened the reputation of a widely- read blogger, Pat Flannery, who has frequently exposed wrong doings in the Mayor's Office and reported the mayor's "f--- you Steve" comment.
The Ethics Commission is also currently investigating an environmental lawyer, Cory Briggs, who is despised by the mayor's office because he stands up for the public interest, on another trumped-up charge.
In contrast, the executive director refused to investigate the Sainz profane e-mail and the delivery by Fred Sainz to Union-Tribune editor, Bob Kittle, of the I.P. addresses of City Attorney computers. She also refused to investigate the retaliatory firing of assistant COO Rick Reynolds by his immediate superior, COO Jay Goldstone, for doing his job as defined in the municipal code, and the ensuing coverup by Fred Sainz, Kris Michelle and the mayor himself.
This is exactly what will happen with audits that don't satisfy the Mayor's political needs if Prop. C passes and a compliant auditor is appointed.
VoteNo on Prop. C. By Donna Frye, San DiegoFriday, May 9, 2008 | Public confidence in the city’s finances begins with the auditor. We need someone who will keep an eye on our tax dollars and speak out if it looks like the books are being cooked. That’s why it’s necessary for auditors to be independent from the entity that they audit.
Proposition C allows the mayor to choose the person who audits all city management and all city departments. Since the mayor is the manager in charge of all city management and departments, allowing any mayor to appoint the person who will audit the city departments is like having the fox guard the henhouse.
How can you honestly audit the person who not only appoints you, but also participates in the selection of the majority of the audit committee members who will have the ability to recommend firing you? Does anyone really believe that an auditor selected by management/mayor will be independent from the person who appointed him or her?
The only "standard" relied upon by those who support the mayor appointing the city auditor is the following eight words from the Generally Accepted Government Auditing Standards issued by the United States Government Accountability Office - "appointed by someone other than a legislative body." However, nowhere in the Government Auditing Standards does it ever state that management/mayor should be that "someone." In fact, page after page of the Government Auditing Standards provides standards as to why auditors must be independent from the entity they audit, both in fact and appearance.
None of the five largest cities in the United States allow their mayor to appoint the city auditor; neither should San Diego. We can have real reform by voting NO on Prop C on June 3rd and doing it right in November.
Frye represents District 6 on the San Diego City Council. By Bob Nelson, Bankers HillWednesday, May 7, 2008 | I was surprised at the curious spin in David Washburn's story about Proposition C. While the story highlights the "strange bedfellows" of Donna Frye and Carl DeMaio, it totally ignores that the "Yes on C" co-chairs are Taxpayers Association President Lani Lutar and Labor Council CEO Lorena Gonzalez.
While glorifying Ms. Frye, the story fails to name any of the five council members who sponsored Prop. C -- including Gonzalez' one-time rival council candidate, Kevin Faulconer. But none of them bring cuddly animal characters to public events, so maybe that is not so important.
It is a shame that this cult of personality angle became the focus of an otherwise thoughtful article. Mr. Washburn's coverage and the Union-Tribune editorial page (talk about your strange bedfellows!) seem to be the only places where there has been a dispassionate description of the checks and balances in Prop. C.
As was recommended by the SEC monitor, the mayor names the auditor-designate in consultation with an independent Audit Committee; thereafter the Council confirms or denies the appointment; once seated, the auditor reports to a new and independent Audit Committee on which the mayor has no representative; the auditor serves a 10-year term which outlasts the maximum eight-year term of any mayor or council member; and the auditor can only be fired for lawful cause, and upon a majority vote of the Audit Committee, and upon a super-majority confirmation by the Council.
Donna Frye likes to talk about foxes and hen houses; when you strip away the cute rhetoric, I see more horsefeathers than chicken feathers flying in the wake of her argument. By Barbara Cleves Anderson, San CarlosWednesday, May 7, 2008 | The mayor's Charter Review Committee voted 6 to 7 in favor of the mayor hiring the independent auditor. Six felt that independent meant independent.
Will the independent auditor be beholden to the mayor if he/she is hired by the mayor? You bet. Is there a perception of impropriety? Guess. Why would the mayor want to hire the IA? It looks bad.
The new audit committee will have six members and report to the council. It would be pretty hard to stack the deck with that many people involved in the decision. I commend all who are against Proposition C and See it for what it really is. Another chance to manipulate the figures. By Judy Ki, PowayWednesday, May 7, 2008 | Dear Editor,
Upon reading Mitz Lee's statement regarding Dr. Evans' stance alongside with teachers, parents and their children, her remark, and I quote "It's not my cup of tea to go to a rally and score points with one side," she said. "It doesn't solve problems."
Isn't it the role of a school board trustee to stand up for stakeholders to demand fair treatment by the legislators? After all, parents and teachers are also taxpayers. Why would our talented young people go into the teaching profession if they know that nobody will stand up for them when it matters? By Jeff Knox, Imperial BeachTuesday, May 6, 2008 | Dear Editor,
I arrived home after work last Thursday, May 1, to the strange sight of fixed-wing aircraft sharing the airspace of the Imperial Beach Naval Outlying Field (Ream Field) with what appeared to be normal helicopter operations. From the vantage point of my backyard, I watched the Red Bull pilots dive and slice through their towers, nicely set up in the middle of the runway, while Navy helicopters performed their normal maneuvers, rotating around the airfield. When I called North Island, I was informed that the tower had everything under control and asked if I wished to file a noise complaint. My concern, I told them, was not noise but safety. They filed my call as a noise complaint anyway. The joint use continued on Friday. Since I have been repeatedly informed over the course of many years, that fixed wing and helicopter operations in the same air space are dangerously incompatible, and that civilian and military flights can never safely operate out of the same airport, a couple of questions quickly come to mind. If the tower can control such flight operations at Ream Field, why can't they do the same at North Island, thereby saving our military the expense of keeping Ream Field active? If both civilian and military aircraft can fly out of the same military instillation, why can't the airliners utilizing Lindbergh Field move to Miramar, thus creating a more practical and safer joint use airport, freeing the space occupied by our extremely inadequate San Diego International Airport for development benefiting the city, county, and port of San Diego? By Ian Trowbridge, Mission HillsTuesday, May 6, 2008 | Lorena is being disingenuous when she says the mailer was just a thank you to the City Council.
According to Evan McLaughlin, political director of the Labor Council, they reported the piece as an election campaign mailer to satisfy the San Diego Election Ordinance that I helped put in place. And that is what it is--a "Peters for City Attorney" mailer.
The mailer is a naked endorsement of Scott Peters for city attorney, and Lorena should be honest about that. Why conceal the fact by this foolish mailer?
Regulating the content of dishonest campaign mailers is too complicated for authorities.
That is why public criticism is the only way to keep union and business interests in line. By Dianne Parham, Normal HeightsTuesday, May 6, 2008 | "The San Diego County Water Authority is rolling out its $1.8 million advertising campaign that implores the region's residents to stop using quite so much water." How about just getting water wasters like Scott Peters to save their fair share of water instead of going after people who have been conserving for several years? I'm tired of being told to save save save when Scott Peters and a couple of his pals on City Council waste waste waste. By Lorena Gonzalez, Pacific BeachMonday, May 5, 2008 | I was honestly surprised when I heard Donna Frye was upset about the mail piece we sent out from the Labor Council earlier this week, and I am truly sorry if anyone was offended by the mail. We were motivated to create the piece because of our desire to highlight the leadership exhibited by Democrats on the City Council when they supported these positive, progressive actions despite the unwarranted but heavy opposition mounted by Mayor Jerry Sanders and some of the more reactionary members of the business community.
Although one of the newspapers in town has taken to printing the e-mail addresses of our council members when they want readers to contact them about more sensational issues, we didn't see the same courtesy extended to the public on the General Plan update after the Council fixed the mayor's proposal to better protect our environment and promote self-sustaining wages. I wish we could afford to alert the voters every time our Council accomplishes something as visionary as the general plan update, but unfortunately, we just can't possibly do that.
We stand by our decision to publically thank Councilmembers Toni Atkins, Donna Frye, Ben Hueso, and Tony Young; and, to highlight the leadership of Council President Scott Peters, who authored both the environmental and economic prosperity policies that made their way into the General Plan. But, I am sorry if Councilwoman Frye or anyone else took the "Thank You" the wrong way -- that certainly wasn't our intentions.
By Hector Viadiu, San DiegoFriday, May 02, 2008 | Nice article!
Would it be a good idea to use some of the fence that people want to separate Mexico from the United States on the Coronado Bridge instead?
The builders who are promoting the border fence would make as much money per foot and they later can come back to promote the border fence. By Frances O'Neill Zimmerman, La JollaFriday, May 2, 2008 | Judging from writer Randy Dotinga's graphic description of what happens to suicidal people who jump from the Coronado Bridge, I guess he wants to have safety mesh put up there as a deterrent. Barriers will probably be ugly and expensive, but they would be worthwhile to save lives and the indescribable heartache of surviving families.
Not long ago, there was a documentary film on bridge suicides that was well-reviewed in New York and Los Angeles papers, but the movie never made it to San Diego -- presumably because of its devastating subject and unlikely marketability. It will be interesting to see if any of our legislators are literally willing to come to the rescue after this powerful series. By Ed Martin, San DiegoWednesday, April 30, 2008 | Once again we see an article in the Union-Tribune that needlessly highlights the fact that a military person is involved in a crime. (Page 2, Our Region 'Public Safety' section titled "Navy enlistee arrested in stepdaughter's death"). The fact that he is in the Navy has nothing to do with his offense. What is the point of including that information? It isn't pertinent.
Why am I irritated by this? Because by pointing out the man's occupation it contributes to a mindset that military people as a group are prone to violence or unacceptable behavior. Not one other crime reported on that page identifies the perpetrator's profession. This a pattern of reporting that keeps recurring in the U-T newspaper.
I've contacted the U-T on this issue before, about an 80-year-old man who had served in the Marine Corps in his youth, and was labeled an 'ex-Marine' in the article describing his arrest for rape (at his trial he was found to have been falsely accused and not guilty). At that time I was informed by the readers' representative that the police don't make note of non-military perpetrators' professions so the U-T was unable to identify them by their profession. So? Does that mean the Union-Tribune is obliged to report military affiliation even if it's not pertinent?
Much as they might deny it, I believe the U-T's editors have an agenda. And I'm not alone in thinking it's high time to change it. It currently smacks of elitism, or worse.
|
One important detail to keep in mind.
Friday, May 16 -- 8:58 am
Mayor says the unions need to unite behind a pension plan or he's going to the voters.
Thursday, May 15 -- 6:52 pm
State Department commission says it is scuttling Bajagua.
Thursday, May 15 -- 2:35 pm
SURVIVAL IN SAN DIEGO
Filings up 103 percent over the year.
Wednesday, May 14 -- 11:33 am
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
Why are we allowing unreasonable people to demand that we spend money to disturb the seal colony that so many people enjoy visiting?
Thursday, May 15 -- 1:58 pm
CAFÉ SAN DIEGO
Marti Emerald can bring all of these assets to City Hall.
Thursday, May 15 -- 7:50 pm
COMMENTARY: SLOP
'The community knows what I have to offer.'
Thursday, May 15 -- 6:32 pm
COMMENTARY: RICH TOSCANO
Foreclosure filings piled up at their fastest pace yet in April.
Monday, May 12 -- 11:37 pm
|
|
Letters may be edited for length -- we prefer they not be longer than 350 words. And they may be edited for style and libelous content.