June 3, 2008
Unofficial Crotty Voter Guide
The June 3rd statewide primary ballot doesn’t provide much excitement for voters.
Only Prop 98 and Prop 99 are at the top of the ticket and they are yawners unless:
1) You’re a member of the Farm Bureau
2) You believe Howard Jarvis was the Messiah (or, maybe just a saint)
3) A government agency has taken your property (with or without “just compensation”)
We’ll discuss the two Props shortly, but suffice to say: at the statewide level, very few voters are engaged. And, what happens when voters are bored? That’s right, they stay home (or, here in San Diego, they go to the beach). So, many of the local races will come down to who has the best get-out-the-vote (GOTV).
How low will it (turnout) go? Well, if all permanent absentee voters (PAVs) were to cast ballots, turnout might reach about 26-28%. But, at least where I’m running campaigns in California it looks as though even the normally high-propensity PAVs are not returning their ballots.
In San Luis Obispo County, where I have two County Supervisor’s races, about 53% of PAVs and requested absentee voters (AVs) have been issued ballots, but barely 31% of them have actually voted and returned them. Based on that and other stats I’ve heard around the state, we’re looking at a turnout of somewhere between 18-22%.
Of course, in certain San Diego districts, turnout will be toward to top of that spectrum because of a hotly contested City Council race, as looks to be the case in District 1, 3 and 7. Come on, you have to admit, the only thing interesting in District 5 (besides a guy with two first names who never had the sense to change one of them) is the percentage by which Carl DeMaio wins. Personally, I believe that DeMaio will be kind of like Bruce Henderson without the theatrics.
But, first, my standard intro:
For those of you receiving this for the first time, let me briefly explain that this is one more in an increasingly occasional series of election guides since 2000, wherein I discuss some of the interesting issues and individuals appearing on the ballot for your consideration and your determination. This voter guide was begun in response to the myriad ballot initiatives California citizens and legislators spawned over the last decade or so, accompanied by clever or stupid or misleading or devious, but certainly confusing campaign ads. Of course, if not for the folks who always called to ask how they should vote, this would never have started, so you can’t blame me. You know who you are.
As I said in my February edition, for this cycle, it will be short and sweet, with very little commentary. The ballot measures are boring or worse, confusing, so I’ll touch on those briefly. In San Diego, it’s the City Attorney’s race, then the Mayor, with the City Council races pulling up the rear. One contested Assembly primary (that I care about), three stupid City ballot Props and … well, even though the Lincoln Club/Republican Party/Gaylord/Chargers going after Steve Castaneda in Chula Vista to help Mayor Cheryl Cox consolidate power, there are very few San Diego County elections that are interesting, so that will be it (the fact that I’m writing this on June 1st also comes into play a bit).
As always, for many readers, this publication is an opportunity to learn the (almost) untarnished truth and make and informed decision prior to voting. Others jump to the end of each discussion, see what I recommend, then vote similarly or otherwise. Oh, feel free to pass this along if you are so inclined (I’m trying to top my record of 1,500 recipients (not necessarily readers).
In addition, I must include my regular caveat that not all the information herein was written by yours truly. Some material was excerpted from other publications. In addition, this analysis is not quite as thorough as most of you have come to expect (and dread).
Proposition 98: Government Acquisition, Regulation of Private Property.
Background
Government Actions to Take Property — “Eminent Domain”
Every year, California state and local governments buy property from private owners. Government uses most of this property for purposes such as roads, schools, and public utilities. In other cases, government buys property for different purposes, such as to transfer it to (1) private owners to develop new businesses or (2) nonprofit organizations to provide affordable housing.
Most of the time, government buys property from willing sellers. Occasionally, property owners do not want to sell their property or do not agree on a sales price. In these cases, California law allows government to take property from a private owner provided that government:
• Uses the property for a “public use” (a term that has been broadly interpreted)
• Pays the property owner “just compensation” (generally, the property’s fair market value) and relocation costs (including some business losses).
This government power to take property for a public use is called “eminent domain.” Government may use eminent domain to take property for a public use if it pays just compensation and relocation costs.
Public Use
Common examples of “public use” include new schools, roads, government buildings, parks, and public utility facilities. The term also includes broad public objectives, such as economic development, eliminating urban blight and public nuisances, and public ownership of utility services. The following activities have been considered a public use:
• Promoting downtown redevelopment by transferring property to other owners to construct new stores, hotels, and other businesses.
• Reducing urban blight and crime by transferring substandard apartments in a high-crime area to a nonprofit housing organization to renovate and manage.
• Securing public control of utility services by acquiring private water and other utility systems and placing them under government ownership.
Just Compensation
Just compensation includes (1) the fair market value of the property taken and (2) any reduction in value of the remaining property when only part of a parcel is taken.
In addition to the payment of just compensation, California law requires governments to pay property owners for certain other expenses and losses associated with the transfer of property ownership.
Government Taking of Property Before Just Compensation Has Been Determined
Sometimes government wants to take property quickly, before the amount of just compensation has been fully determined. In these cases, California laws allow government to deposit the probable amount of just compensation and take property within a few months. This is called a “quick take” eminent domain action. If a property owner accepts these funds, the owner gives up the right to challenge whether government’s action is for a public use. The owner can still challenge the amount of just compensation.
Challenging Eminent Domain
Property owners are not required to accept the amount of compensation government offers. Instead, they may make a counteroffer or challenge the amount in court. Under the State Constitution, property owners are entitled to have the amount of compensation determined by a jury. While property owners also may challenge government’s right to take a property, these challenges are more difficult. In part, this is because courts give significant weight to government’s findings and perspectives when ruling on disputes as to whether an eminent domain action is for public use.
Affordable Housing & Rent Control
More than a dozen California cities have some form of rent control law, including Los Angeles, San Francisco, Oakland, Berkeley, Santa Monica and San Jose. In addition, about 100 cities and counties have laws limiting the rent mobile home park owners may charge people who lease space in their park. Taken together, about one million California households live in rent-controlled apartments or mobile home parks.
While the provisions of these rent control laws vary, they typically restrict the amount of money by which a landlord (or park owner) may increase a tenant’s rent each year. If a tenant moves out of a housing unit or mobile home park, property owners may reset rents to market rates. Once the unit or space is rented again, however, rent control laws restrict the rate of future rent increases.
Inclusionary Zoning
About one-third of California cities and counties have laws referred to as “inclusionary zoning” or “inclusionary housing.” These laws (that can be mandatory or voluntary in nature) have the goal of providing lower-cost housing units in new developments. Mandatory inclusionary laws require developers to construct affordable housing on part of their land or contribute funds to develop such housing.
Voluntary laws offer developers incentives to provide affordable housing. (For example, a city might permit a developer to build an increased number of housing units if some of them are affordable to lower-income households.) In addition, many California cities have ordinances requiring apartment owners to provide relocation benefits to tenants if they convert their property into condominiums.
What the Proponents of Prop 98 Claim it will do
Prop 98 would amend the State Constitution to (1) constrain state and local governments’ authority to take private property and (2) phase out rent control. The measure also will likely constrain government’s authority to implement certain other programs and laws, such as mandatory inclusionary housing programs and tenant relocation benefits. The measure’s provisions apply to all governmental agencies.
“Taking” Property
The measure prohibits government from taking ownership of property to transfer it to a private party — such as a person, business, or nonprofit organization. In addition, government could not take property to use it for (1) a purpose substantially similar to how the private owner used it (such as public operation of a water or electricity delivery system formerly owned by a private company) or (2) the purpose of consuming its natural resources (such as its oil or minerals).
These restrictions on government’s authority to take property also would apply to cases when government transfers the right to use or occupy property (but does not take ownership of it).
Exceptions would apply if government was addressing a public nuisance or criminal activity or as part of a state of emergency declared by the Governor.
Under the measure, government could continue to take property for facilities that it would own and use, such as new schools, roads, parks, and public facilities. Government could not take property for one purpose, however, and then use it for a different purpose unless it offered to sell the property back to its previous owner.
Property Owner Challenges
If a property owner challenged government’s authority to use eminent domain, the measure directs the court to exercise its independent judgment and not defer to the findings of the government agency. In addition, property owners could challenge government’s right to take the property even if they accepted funds that government deposited as part of an accelerated eminent domain action.
Property Owner Compensation
The measure contains provisions that would increase the amount of compensation provided to property owners. For example, property owners would be entitled to reimbursement for all business relocation costs, which could exceed the maximum amounts specified under current law. In addition, property owners would be entitled to compensation for their attorney costs if the property owner was successful in an eminent domain challenge.
Rent Control
The measure generally prohibits government from limiting the price property owners may charge others to purchase, occupy, or use their land or buildings. This provision would affect local rent control measures. Specifically, government could not enact new rent control measures, and any rent control measure enacted after January 1, 2007 would end.
Other rent control measures (those enacted before January 1, 2007) would be phased out on a unit-by-unit basis after an apartment unit or mobile home park space is vacated. Once a tenant left an apartment or mobile home space, property owners could charge market rate rents, and that apartment unit or mobile home space would not be subject to rent control again.
Other Laws and Programs
The measure appears to limit government’s authority to impose restrictions on the “ownership, occupancy, or use of property” if the restrictions were imposed “in order to transfer an economic benefit” from one property owner to other private persons. The range of government laws and programs that would be affected by these provisions is not clear and would be determined by the courts. Given the wording of the measure, however, programs such as mandatory inclusionary housing and condominium conversion relocation benefits will likely be prohibited.
Proposition 99
The ballot also contains Proposition 99. If Prop 98 were approved by more votes than Proposition 99, the provisions of Proposition 99 probably would not take effect.
Fiscal Impact:
Eminent Domain Changes
Much of the property state and local government acquires is bought from willing sellers or is taken by eminent domain for purposes that would still be allowed under the measure. In these cases, government could continue to acquire these properties, but might need to pay somewhat more for them. This is because the measure increases the amount of compensation provided for properties taken by eminent domain and willing sellers are likely to demand similar increased amounts.
In some cases, the measure would prevent government from taking property by eminent domain. This reduced ability to take property could apply to many government plans for redevelopment, affordable housing, and public ownership of water or electric utility services.
As a result of this reduced authority to take property, government will end up (1) buying fewer properties and have lower costs or (2) offer property owners more to purchase their properties and thus have higher costs.
The net fiscal effect of these potential changes in the number and price of properties acquired cannot be determined. Overall, it’s estimated that many governments would have net increased costs to acquire property, but that the net statewide fiscal effect is unclear.
Other Goodies
Conforming to the measure’s provisions will result in new costs. For example, a government could respond to the elimination of rent control by creating publicly funded programs to subsidize affordable housing. Given the uncertainty regarding some of the measure’s provisions, some governments might be unaware that their policies conflicted with the measure’s provisions and be required to pay damages to property owners.
The fiscal effect on state and local governments associated with these changes in rent control and other policies is not possible to determine, but there probably would be increased costs to many governments.
My Take
With Proposition 98, property rights advocates once again have undermined themselves and poorly served homeowners, businesspeople and real estate investors by over-reaching. It would have been so easy to give Californians what they need: assurance that no city, county, other local government or the state can condemn property, evict the owner and turn the land over to a developer who donated to elected officials and then convinced them that he could make the plot prettier and more productive.
There was, in fact, a real opportunity to craft a good law in the Capitol, exactly where that sort of work is supposed to get done. Lawmakers were negotiating a constitutional amendment that would have blocked forced private-to-private transfer of homes. It didn't go far enough, but it was a start, and talks with property rights advocates were proceeding.
But landlords detected a chance to use the fear of eminent domain abuse for their own purposes. They poured several million dollars into getting advocates to drop the legislative approach and go to the ballot with an initiative that quietly targets the rent control laws in about 100 California cities, including Los Angeles, Santa Monica and West Hollywood.
You wouldn't know from reading the ballot title and summary that Proposition 98 is an anti-rent-control measure, but that's become the primary focus of its financial backers, the vast majority of whom are landlords and rental property management companies.
If Proposition 98 becomes law, rent controlled units would become permanently market rate when the current tenants leave. In Los Angeles, that would affect 626,600 apartments and other rental units.
Even without the rent control component, the initiative reaches beyond public taking of private land for private gain. By barring the transfer of any economic benefit "to one or more private persons at the expense of the private owner," Proposition 98 crosses into the territory rejected by voters in 2006. It could open the door to lawsuits whenever a government agency zones in such a way that it raises the value of some properties and reduces the potential for others. That could jeopardize efforts to create open space or protect water quality.
Conclusion
As we say when we are fighting a ballot measure, “it’s well intentioned, but fatally flawed.” In the case of Prop 98, it’s not well intentioned and was conceived to be fatally flawed.
Vote “No.”
PROPOSTION 99: EMINENT DOMAIN. LIMITS ON GOVERNMENT ACQUISITION OF OWNER-OCCUPIED RESIDENCE. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.
• Bars state and local governments from using eminent domain to acquire an owner-occupied residence, as defined, for conveyance to a private person or business entity.
• Creates exceptions for public work or improvement, public health and safety protection, and crime prevention.
BACKGROUND
California state and local governments frequently acquire private property to build public facilities (such as roads, parks, and schools) or to promote public objectives (such as economic development and affordable housing).
Most of the time, government buys property from willing sellers. Sometimes, however, property owners do not want to sell their property or do not agree on a sales price. In these cases, California law allows government to take property from a private owner provided that government:
• Uses the property for a “public use” (a term that has been broadly interpreted to mean a variety of public purposes).
• Pays the property owner “just compensation” (generally, the property’s fair market value) and relocation costs (including certain business losses).
This government power to take property for a public use is called “eminent domain.” The nearby box provides additional information regarding the terms public use, just compensation, and relocation costs.
PROPOSAL
This constitutional amendment limits state and local government’s use of eminent domain in certain circumstances. Specifically, the measure prohibits government from using eminent domain to take a single-family home (including a condominium) for the purpose of transferring it to another private party (such as a person, business, or association).
This prohibition, however, would not apply if government was taking the home to:
• Protect public health and safety.
• Prevent serious, repeated criminal activity.
• Respond to an emergency.
• Remedy environmental contamination that posed a threat to public health and safety.
• Use the property for a public work, such as a toll road or airport operated by a private party.
In addition, the prohibition would not apply if the property owner did not live in the home or had lived there for less than a year.
Related Measure on Ballot
This ballot contains two measures related to eminent domain: Proposition 99 (this measure) and Proposition 98. If this measure were approved by more votes than Proposition 98, this measure provides that the provisions of Proposition 98 would not take effect.
FISCAL EFFECTS
Under current law and practice, government seldom uses eminent domain to take single-family homes. Even when it does so, the acquisition often is for a purpose that is permitted under the measure (such as construction of a road or school). Accordingly, this measure would not change significantly current government land acquisition practices.
In a very limited number of cases, however, this measure might result in government:
• Savings—because government could not acquire a home that the owner did not wish to sell.
• Costs—because government might pay more to buy a home than would have been the case if it could have taken the home using eminent domain.
Analysis
Prop 99 is a statement of eminent domain law as it should exist in the wake of the Kelo ruling.
Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005), was the case decided by the Supreme Court involving the use of eminent domain to transfer land from one private owner to another to further economic development.
It basically is the genesis of Prop 98, sponsored by the Farm Bureau, the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association and private property rights zealots.
The case arose from the condemnation by New London, Connecticut, of privately owned real property so that it could be used as part of a comprehensive redevelopment plan. The Court held in a 5-4 decision that the general benefits a community enjoyed from economic growth qualified such redevelopment plans as a permissible "public use" under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
The decision was widely criticized by American politicians and the general public. Many members of the general public viewed the outcome as a gross violation of property rights and as a misinterpretation of the Fifth Amendment, the consequence of which would be to benefit large corporations at the expense of individual homeowners and local communities. Some in the legal profession construe the public's outrage as being directed not at the interpretation of legal principles involved in the case, but at the broad moral principles of the general outcome.
History
The case was appealed from a decision in favor of the city of New London by the Supreme Court of Connecticut, which found that the use of eminent domain for economic development (the central focus of the case) did not violate the public use clauses of the state and federal constitutions. The court found that if an economic project creates new jobs, increases tax and other city revenues, and revitalizes a depressed (even if not blighted) urban area, it qualifies as a public use. The court also found that government delegation of eminent domain power to a private entity was also constitutional as long as the private entity served as the legally authorized agent of the government.
The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari to consider questions first raised in Berman v. Parker, 348 U.S. 26 (1954) and later in Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff, 467 U.S. 229 (1984). Namely, does a "public purpose" constitute a "public use" for purposes of the Fifth Amendment's Taking Clause, "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation"?
Specifically, does the Fifth Amendment, applicable to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protect landowners from the use of eminent domain for economic development, rather than, as in Berman, for the elimination of slums and blight?
The Case
The city of New London, Connecticut, had by the early 2000s fallen on hard economic times. The city's tax base and population were continually decreasing, and city leaders were growing desperate for a new hope of economic development. In 1998, the pharmaceutical company Pfizer began construction of a major new research facility on the outskirts of the Fort Trumbull neighborhood of New London. Seeing an opportunity, the city of New London reactivated the New London Development Corporation, a private entity under the control of the city government, to consider plans to redevelop the Fort Trumbull neighborhood and encourage new economic activities that might be brought in by the Pfizer plant.
The development corporation created a development plan that included a resort hotel and conference center, a new state park, 80–100 new residences (which is now down to a mix of 14 rental townhouses and 66 apartments in a three-story building), and various research, office, and retail space. The plan divided the area into seven parcels, but did not specify the exact plans for development in any but the first parcel (the resort hotel and conference center). The city in 2000 approved the development plan and authorized the corporation to acquire the necessary land in the Fort Trumbull neighborhood.
Today, about half the homes in the former Fort Trumbull neighborhood are bulldozed and overgrown with weeds.
Fort Trumbull was an older neighborhood, some 90 acres in size and including 115 residential and commercial lots. The development corporation offered to purchase all 115 lots; however, the owners of 15 of these properties did not wish to sell to the corporation. Of the 15 properties, ten were owned by occupants, and five by investors. Nine owners, not all of whom were full-time residents, were the petitioners in this case; the lead plaintiff, Susette Kelo, owned a small home on the Thames River in the development area.
The city of New London chose to exercise its power of eminent domain. The city ordered the development corporation, a private entity acting as the city's legally appointed agent, to condemn the 15 holdout owners' lots.
Connecticut Court Rulings
The owners sued the city in Connecticut courts, arguing that the city had misused its eminent domain power. The power of eminent domain is limited by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. The Fifth Amendment, which restricts the actions of the federal government, says in part that "private property [shall not] be taken for public use, without just compensation"; under Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment, this limitation is also imposed on the actions of U.S. state and local governments. Kelo and the other appellants argued that economic development, the stated purpose of the Development Corporation, did not qualify as public use.
Certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court
This case was the first major eminent domain case heard at the Supreme Court since 1984. In that time, states and municipalities had slowly extended their use of eminent domain, frequently to include economic development purposes where applicable. In the Kelo case, there was an additional twist in that the development corporation was ostensibly a private entity; thus the plaintiffs argued that it was not constitutional for the government to take private property from one individual or corporation and give it to another, if the government was simply doing so because the repossession would put the property to a use that would generate higher tax revenue.
The first eminent domain case since Midkiff to reach the Supreme Court, Kelo became the focus of vigorous discussion and attracted numerous supporters on both sides. Some 40 amicus curiae briefs were filed in the case, 25 on behalf of the petitioners. Suzette Kelo's supporters ranged from the libertarian Institute for Justice (the lead lawyers) to the NAACP, AARP and the late Martin Luther King's Southern Christian Leadership Conference. The latter three groups signed an amicus brief arguing that eminent domain has often been used against politically weak communities with high concentrations of minorities and elderly.
Oral Argument
The case was argued on February 22, 2005. The case was heard by only seven members of the court with Associate Justice Sandra Day O'Connor presiding, as Chief Justice William Rehnquist was recuperating from medical treatment at home and Associate Justice John Paul Stevens was delayed on his return to Washington from Florida; both absent Justices read the briefs and oral argument transcripts and participated in the case decision.
The Court's Decision: Majority and Concurring Opinions
On June 23, 2005, the Supreme Court, in a 5–4 decision, ruled in favor of the City of New London. Justice John Paul Stevens wrote the majority opinion; he was joined by Justices Anthony Kennedy, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer.
Justice Kennedy penned a concurring opinion setting out more detailed standards for judicial review of economic development takings than that found in Stevens' majority opinion. In so doing, he contributed to the Court's trend of turning minimum scrutiny--the idea that government policy need only bear a rational relation to a legitimate government purpose--into a fact-based test.
In Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff, 467 US 229 (1984), the Court had said that the government purpose under minimum scrutiny need only be "conceivable." In two 1996 cases, however, the Court clarified that concept. In Romer v. Evans, 517 US 620, the Court said that the government purpose must be "independent and legitimate." And in U.S. v. Virginia, 518 U.S. 515, the Court said the government purpose "must be genuine, not hypothesized or invented post hoc in response to litigation." Thus, the Court made it clear that, in the scrutiny regime established in West Coast Hotel v. Parrish, 300 US 379 (1937), government purpose is a question of fact for the trier of fact.
Kennedy fleshed out this doctrine in his Kelo concurring opinion, in which he sets out a program of civil discovery in the context of a challenge to an assertion of government purpose in the eminent domain context. However, he does not explicitly limit these criteria to eminent domain, nor to minimum scrutiny, suggesting that they may be generalized to all health and welfare regulation in the scrutiny regime. Because Kennedy signed on to the Court's majority opinion, his concurrence is not binding on lower courts.
He writes:
"A court confronted with a plausible accusation of impermissible favoritism to private parties should [conduct]….a careful and extensive inquiry into ‘whether, in fact, the development plan [chronology]
[1.] is of primary benefit to . . . the developer…, and private businesses which may eventually locate in the plan area…,
[2.] and in that regard, only of incidental benefit to the city…[.]’"
Kennedy is also interested in facts of the chronology which show, with respect to government,
[3.] awareness of…depressed economic condition and evidence corroborating the validity of this concern…,
[4.] the substantial commitment of public funds…before most of the private beneficiaries were known…,
[5.] evidence that [government] reviewed a variety of development plans…[,]
[6.] [government] chose a private developer from a group of applicants rather than picking out a particular transferee beforehand and…
[7.] other private beneficiaries of the project [were]…unknown [to government] because the…space proposed to be built [had] not yet been rented…."
Kelo v. City of New London was not a case which established an entirely new law concerning eminent domain. While the decision was controversial, it was not the first time “public use” had been interpreted by the Supreme Court as “public purpose.” In the majority opinion, Justice Stevens wrote the "Court long ago rejected any literal requirement that condemned property be put into use for the general public" (545 U.S. 469). Thus precedent played an important role in the 5-4 decision of the Supreme Court. The Fifth Amendment was interpreted the same way as in Midkiff (467 U.S. 229) and other earlier eminent domain cases that reached the Supreme Court.
Dissenting opinions
Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote the principal dissent, joined by Chief Justice William Rehnquist, Justice Antonin Scalia, and Justice Clarence Thomas. Justice O'Connor objected to the fact that an unelected (therefore voter-unaccountable) private nonprofit corporation was the primary beneficiary of the government taking. As a result, the dissenting opinion suggested that the use of this takings power in a reverse Robin Hood fashion— take from the poor, give to the rich— would become the norm, not the exception: "Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random. The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms."
She argued that the decision eliminates "any distinction between private and public use of property — and thereby effectively delete[s] the words 'for public use' from the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment."
Clarence Thomas also penned a separate dissent, but I have no respect for the man, so we won’t even bother discussing his opinion.
The Fallout
The wider effect of Kelo remains to be seen. It will have little effect in the eight states that specifically prohibit the use of eminent domain for economic development except to eliminate blight: Arkansas, Florida, Illinois, Kentucky, Maine, Montana, South Carolina and Washington.
As of July 4, 2005, The Washington Times claims that the decision has spurred action by officials in Newark, New Jersey and Arnold, Missouri. As of August 4, 2005, Alabama has banned takings like those authorized by Kelo, while such laws have been proposed in sixteen states and are likely to be proposed in seven more.
In addition the California, Alabama, Florida, Michigan, New Jersey and Texas are all considering constitutional amendments for the same purpose. As of March 2006, the town of Scituate, Massachusetts, in its annual town meeting, voted to limit its own eminent domain power to cases where the property in question is seized only for public ownership and public use.
A study of more than 10,000 allegedly abusive uses of the eminent domain clause conducted by an organization that supported the landowners in the Kelo case supports the argument that, as predicted in the dissenting opinions, neighborhoods with low-income minority residents will be most likely to see the power of Kelo used. Other likely locations for use of Kelo power include older neighborhoods near waterfront or developed commercial areas and low- and middle-class areas in general.
Judge Richard Posner, University of Chicago Law School professor and widely respected scholar of law and economics, published an analysis of the Kelo decision. Although Posner does not take a position as to whether Kelo was properly decided, he observes that the eminent domain power can play an important role in eliminating economic problems associated with holdout owners (an economic term). He says that eminent domain can properly be used to address holdouts even in transactions involving private parties, such as utilities or other entities. He observes, however, that the Court apparently did not consider whether there was in fact a holdout program or assess net effect of the development plan on economic welfare, and notes many of the difficulties and complexities of the issues.
On January 25, 2006, BB&T's Chairman and CEO John Alison, announced that it "will not lend to commercial developers that plan to build condominiums, shopping malls and other private projects on land taken from private citizens by government entities using eminent domain," holding that the ruling is morally objectionable and violates "basic rights".
On February 7, 2006, a compromise was proposed by Mayor Beth Sabilia between the residents of Fort Trumbull and the City of New London under which four of the six residences would remain, and the other two would be relocated within the new proposed complex. Under this proposal, the city would gain the title to the disputed properties, and rent would be imposed in lieu of taxes.
On May 23, 2006, the City Council of Hercules, California, voted unanimously to use the right of eminent domain to seize 17 acres owned by Wal-Mart. At a hearing preceding the decision, many dozens of residents spoke against Wal-Mart, complaining that the box stores economically depress an area by driving small shops bankrupt, and moving profits out of the local economy. The council applied the reasoning in the Kelo decision to pre-emptively prevent Wal-Mart from depressing the city's economy. It is unclear if Wal-Mart intends to take legal action against Hercules, California.
Analysis
Prop 99 would prohibit government from using eminent domain to take a single-family home (including a condominium) for the purpose of transferring it to another private party (such as a person, business, or association). However, in keeping with traditional eminent domain law, this prohibition would not apply if government was taking the home to:
• Protect public health and safety.
• Prevent serious, repeated criminal activity.
• Respond to an emergency.
• Remedy environmental contamination that posed a threat to public health and safety.
• Use the property for a public work, such as a toll road or airport operated by a private party.
In addition, the prohibition would not apply if the property owner did not live in the home or had lived there for less than a year.
My Take
When you see two competing ballot measure, like Props 98 and 99, most often you can be assured that the second of the two was qualified by opponents of the first measure. And, if this is the case, as it is with 98 and 99, the subsequent “competing” or “alternate” measure will do absolutely nothing. That’s because we political consultants understand a fundamental rule of voter behavior. Confused voters don’t vote.
The League of California Cities (LCC) along with the California State Association of Counties (CSAC, the County equivalent of the LCC) went to a political consultant a told him or her that they wanted to defeat prop 98. The consultant then said, “Let’s put up a counter measure.”
“Wait,” said LCC and CSAC, “we like things the way they are.”
“I don’t care what it says,” replied the consultant, “it’s simply to draw votes from Prop 98.”
“But what if our measure wins,” asked LCC and CSAC.
“Then make it as innocuous as possible,” said the consultant, “perhaps even unenforceable or, better yet, unconstitutional.”
And that was the genesis of Prop 99. For every outlandish provision of Prop 98, Prop 99 says basically, not so much. Whether a bogus competing ballot measure or not, Prop 99 is a good thing. It’s taken the wind out of the sails of 98. And, as discussed above, 98 is bad news.
I can’t say Prop 99 is worth voting for. However, so long as it serves as a reminder to vote No on 98, it’s done it’s job.
Thoughtful Addendum
As with most laws that are disputed, the arbiter is often the courts. In this case, popular opinion has forced eminent domain to be limited in the wake of the Kelo ruling and a number of cities and states have adopted their own limitations on government takings.
The thing we absolutely should not do is t change the state constitution before the courts and state legislators get to play with it for a while.
Conclusion
As I’ve said, Prop 99 was written primarily to draw votes away from Prop 98. I don’t think we should amend the state constitution based on a measure that is 100% political and not a result of experience and good judgment.
Therefore, first vote “no” on 98. Then, vote “no” on 99.
78th Assembly District Democratic Primary
I’m sorry. I apologize. I had no reason to believe that what happened would happen.
Shirley Horton was a shy, naïve young woman when I fist met her. Attractive, nice and seemingly harmless. She was a very good real estate agent. She was registered as a non-partisan and held very moderate views. Did I say she was shy? She was so shy, that we did a full-day photo shoot I ended up with only one photo in which she was looking into the camera. One shot out of hundreds. In every other photo, Shirley was looking down in the way that painfully shy people avert their gaze when you look at them. Really, had could I have seen that she’d be a partisan Republican Assembly Member?
Shirley had been appointed to fill out the term of Chula Vista Council Member. She was talked into running for election to a full council term by a number of Chula Vista heavyweights, including (pre-indicted felon) David Malcolm. Okay. Okay. David’s involvement should have set off some alarms. She paid her bills.
Of course, I ran her campaign for mayor and at that point she was still non-partisan and claimed (and I believe truthfully at the time) to have no interest in running for higher office.
What makes things worse is that I live in what used to be the 78th Assembly District. I worked for Lucy Killea when she represented the district.
So, I helped create a monster. Then I was forced to stand by and watch while Democratic candidates with Sacramento consultants who don’t understand the south bay repeatedly failed to take her out.
Finally, Shirley has been forced out by term limits. A chance for a Democrat to take back our seat. What happens? A Republican switches parties and challenges Marty Block in the Democratic primary.
Then, a couple more nice but misguided former clients jump into the Dem primary as well.
Luckily, whoever comes out of the Democratic primary should be able to outpoll white bread Republican (but again, a nice guy) Jim McCann (also a former client – the south bay is a bit insidious that way).
But, my major problem is with Auday Arabo. How do I know Auday? Through ultra-conservative East County State Senator Dennis Hollingsworth. What’s more, I got to know him better when he was the face of the tobacco industry in 2006 for Prop (that’s a very long story, and I’m short on time).
I understand Denise Ducheny being a Democrat, supporting guns and opposing mandatory helmets for motorcycle riders – that’s what her constituents want. It’s like when Bob Filner voted to repeal the estate tax (cleverly and effectively called the “death tax” by Republicans) – in his gerrymandered district, he now represents farmers. Actually, large agricultural interests, but regardless, he needed to vote to abolish it because that’s what his constituents wanted.
But, Auday is approaching things backwards. He is President and CEO of the Neighborhood Market Association (previously known as California Independent Grocers & Convenience Stores), which subsequently merged with the California Independent Grocers and Convenience Stores and the California Beverage Merchants, creating the largest grocers association on the West Coast.
What has Auday’s organization done?
• Opposed AB 32 (Nunez). This measure was the historic Global Warming Act of 2006, which created a statewide greenhouse gas (GHG) emission limit that would reduce emissions by 25% by 2020.
• “Vigorously opposed” a number of measures including AB 581 (Klehs), which sought to open new avenues to sue employers by establishing a broad new private right of action that permits joint labor management committees to sue any employer for certain Labor Code violations that may have occurred up to four years previously, among other provisions. “NMA worked with our allies in the Legislature to stop the passage of this measure in the State Senate.”
• Worked against a number of measures dealing with fuel pricing issues. The organization successfully opposed AB 1012 (Nation), which sought strict mandates requiring the sale of alternative fuels such as ethanol and bio-diesel. The bill would have severely harmed California’s oil companies. The NMA worked with a number of allied groups to obtain a Governor’s veto of this proposal.
• The Governor and the Democratic leadership in the Legislature finally reached agreement on an increase to the state’s minimum wage. AB 1835 (Lieber) was signed by the Governor and required a $1.25 increase to the minimum wage to be implemented in two $.75 increments. Although the NMA opposed this measure, the unified opposition of the small business community was essential in getting proponents to take an amendment to the measure which eliminated the section of the bill requiring annual increases to the wage going forward.
• “In yet another example of a measure that would adversely effect the California fuel market, NMA strongly opposed AB 2442 (Klehs). This proposal sought to impose a 2 percent tax on oil companies’ net income in excess of $10 million. NMA and its allies in the industry were successful in stopping this proposal in the Legislature.”
• A number of measures were introduced which affected the issuance or transfer of liquor licenses in California. One example of this type of proposal was AB 2672 (Oropeza), which sought to increase the extension period for local government review of liquor license applications or transfers from 20 to 30 days if a proper written request was made by any entity or official receiving the required notification. NMA opposed this measure when it was introduced and was part of a successful effort that stopped this bill from moving out of the Legislature.
• AB 3075 (Klehs) sought to impose a 5 percent tax on oil companies` net income in excess of $10 million. Again, NMA strongly opposed this proposal and successfully joined with our industry allies to keep this measure from passing out of the Legislature.
• “ACA 36 (Nation) was a relatively straightforward attempt to raise excise taxes on gasoline. This measure would have increased the state excise tax on gasoline and diesel fuel by five cents per gallon every year for the next five years, which would have meant a 25-cent per gallon tax increase by 2011. NMA strongly opposed this … and was part of a successful effort which stopped this measure in the State Assembly.”
• SB 148 (Scott) was another measure dealing with the issuance of liquor licenses. As originally introduced, the bill authorized the Dept. of Alcoholic Beverage Control to impose conditions that it determines are reasonable pursuant to its investigation relating to license transfers. It mandated additional reasons for the suspension or revocation of a license, when the licensee fails to “take reasonable steps to correct objectionable conditions on the premises or on any public sidewalk abutting premises”, after notice from the district attorney, city attorney, or county counsel. NMA was a leader in the effort to oppose this onerous legislation and successfully stopped this measure from moving through the Assembly in 2005. As a result of this effort, the author agreed to take a series of amendments during the 2006 session which substantially lessened the impacts of the bill.
• As a result of the veto of AB 417 in 2005 (which would have clarified the taxation policy of flavored malt beverages – or FMBs), opponents of these products continued in their attempts to have the beverages re-classified as distilled spirits. SB 1180 (Migden) dealt with the issue of whether or not stores were actively marketing flavored-malt beverages to minors and specifically prohibited the placement of beverage advertising in an area with “an expected youth audience of 15% or more”. NMA was strongly opposed to this measure, and was part of a strong effort created to defeat the proposal. Although the author continued to take substantial amendments (and eventually turned the measure into a bill which simply studied the issue), the measure never garnered enough support to move out of the Legislature.
Give it up, Auday. Once a Republican, always a Republican. He’s running in the Democratic primary because he knows he would lose in the Republican primary. Plus, if Arlie and Maxine pull enough votes, it could be a Republican versus a Republican in November.
As to Arlie Ricassa and Maxine Sherard.
I like Arlie. She’s is a Trustee and immediate past-President of the Sweetwater Union High School District (SUHSD) Board of Trustees. She is Director of Student Development at Southwestern College in the City of Chula Vista. Arlie is a member of the Board of Directors for the Chula Vista Police Activities League and MAAC Project of San Diego County. She served in the San Diego Asian Pacific Islander Alliance, Filipino American Educators Association of San Diego County, and California School Boards Association. She was former President of the San Diego County School Boards Association and served on the Board of Directors for the South Bay Family YMCA.
Arlie deserves a shot at just about any seat she wants. Unfortunately, not the 78th AD in this year’s primary.
I love Maxine Sherard (also a former client). If she were ever to be elected (like Arlie), she would do a great job. Maxine is a retired University and Community College Professor. She’s taught at the University of Iowa, University of Wisconsin- La Crosse, San Diego State University, and the Educational Cultural Complex, San Diego City College and West City Center- San Diego Community College District.
Maxine has been tireless in her community work, taking on such issues as jobs and livable wages, affordable housing, environmental justice, energy conservation, public education, affordable health care, and senior rights. She was an alternate on the San Diego City’s Redistricting Commission, and frequently testifies on issues such as civil rights, equal opportunity/employment, environmental quality and justice, senior rights, and preservation of historical sites.
Maxine is founder and past chair of the MLK Democratic Club; past 78th AD representative to the California Democratic Party; former chair of the 78th and 79th AD; past board member for the San Diego Democratic Central Committee; volunteer at the 2000 Democratic National Convention and an attendee at the 2004 Democratic National Convention. She coordinated the Phone Bank during the 2004 Presidential Election in Jacksonville, Florida- Southside office.
Maxine spent eight days in New Orleans following Katrina doing relief work. She has since assisted in raising awareness about the plights of Katrina survivors and about the Baton Rouge schools’ Adopt-A-School program designed to assist those schools hard hit by 6,000 additional students.
The list of local community boards, civic and political organizations with which she’s involved is practically endless, including the past Mayor’s African American Advisory Committee, San Diego Black Historical Society, Broadway Heights Community Council, San Diego Progressive Caucus, African American Black Caucus, Literacy Volunteers of America, San Diego Tema-Sister City Society, Golden Ankh Committee, African Community Services, and others.
Like Arlie, any other seat at any other time.
Why Marty Block? He’s been there and done that. Various interest groups take hold of a newbie Assembly member and before you know it, they are voting a certain way because Fabian Nunez said so, or because Ted Lieu says so or because Karen Bass and Mark Ridley-Thomas say so.
Marty knows his way around and I don’t believe he’ll be swayed to do anything that’s not in the best interests of his constituents or the San Diego region. He may do what the teachers or Jack O’Connell say, but it would be about education, and I’m okay with doing something for education and educators.
Since I’ve known Marty forever, I often assume everyone has. For those of you who don’t know Marty’s bone fides, here’s a brief sample:
• San Diego Community College District Board of Trustees (Elected 2000, 2004 and 2008) and elected by Colleagues as President for Eight Terms
• San Diego County Board of Education - Elected 1986 and 1990
• Elected by Colleagues as President for Two Terms
• Elected as Statewide President of California County Boards of Education
• Elected to Board of Directors of California School Boards Association
• President, San Diego-Imperial Counties Comm. College Assn
• Statewide Co-Chair, CA Comm. Colleges Underfunded District Caucus
• Past Commissioner, San Diego County Commission on Children, Youth and Families
• Past Member, San Diego County Alcohol and Drug Abuse Prevention Task Force
• Past Government Relations Chair, San Diego Multiple Sclerosis Society
• Past President, American Jewish Committee, San Diego Chapter
• Founding Chair, San Diego Latino/Jewish Coalition
• Past Member, San Diego Children’s Initiative
• Host of more Public Affairs Television Programs on San Diego’s Learning Channel
• Service as a Judge Pro Tem
• Retired after 26 years as professor, dean and director
• Founding Chair/Director, National Higher Education Law and Policy institute
• Elected as Delegate in 1988 (Dukakis), 1992 &1996 (Clinton), and 2004 (Kerry)
• Five-time Recipient of Outstanding Faculty Awards at San Diego State University
• Presented with University Distinguished Service Award upon Retirement
• Honored for community service by California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation
There’s more, but you get the idea.
My former boss, Lucy Killea, endorses and supports Marty (although her name is misspelled on his website), as well as Mike Gotch (RIP), Howard Wayne and Dede Alpert, all former 78th AD representatives.
Vote for Marty Block.
Mayor
Well, Jerry Sanders was supposed to steer the City through rough financial times. We didn’t declare bankruptcy, so that’s a plus.
I miss the old Council/Manager form of government. The Mayor had to sit with the Council and earn a 5-vote majority the old fashion way – the way government and politics is supposed to work – through horse trading.
But now, the Mayor is Imperial and controls the budget (and, hence the agenda of the City) by fiat. If we had an Imperial, fiat-issuing type of person in the Mayor’s office, perhaps it would be different. But, we have, “aw, shucks, I’m just one of the guys” Jerry Sanders, who (except when it comes to Mike Aguirre) wants everyone to get along and play nice.
That’s not the way to change things. And, far too few things have been fundamentally changed.
It’s partly the fault of the City Council, which fails to stand up to the Mayor and has the same go along to get along attitude. Except Donna Frye. She likes to throw bombs. But, to be effective, one must attack with the infantry once the bombs have been tossed, and Donna seems to have no inclination to send in the troops. Occasional explosions seem okay with her.
So, is Steve Francis the answer?
By now, everyone should know the Steve Francis story. He’s spent several million dollars telling it on TV and radio.
Briefly, Steve Francis Steve worked in the entertainment and sports management department at Caesars Palace Hotel. In 1982, at the age of 28, Steve was one of the youngest assemblymen ever elected to the Nevada State Assembly, representing the UNLV area.
However, the Nevada legislature is a part-time job. Steve wanted to make money. Lots of it. And he did.
Steve and his wife Gayle, a registered nurse, founded AMN Healthcare – basically finding nurses and placing them with whoever needed them. Then, a funny thing happened. There was a nursing crisis. Far too much demand and not enough supply. Steve started to make lots of money.
In 1987, he said goodbye to the Nevada legislature and moved to San Diego, where the nursing shortage was acute and there were many health care entities that required nurses. Steve became rich.
Then, Steve decided he wanted to run for political office in San Diego. So, he joined the Boards of numerous non-profit and charitable organizations, including Father Joe’s Villages, the San Diego YMCA, American Red Cross, the San Diego Regional Chamber of Commerce, and the San Diego Regional Economic Development Corporation.
Steve ran for Mayor. Steve lost.
In 2006, Steve founded the San Diego Institute for Policy Research, an ostensibly non-partisan organization that undertook economic and policy research, inevitably finding fault with the effectiveness of local government.
Now, Steve is running for Mayor again. Only this time, he’s running to Jerry Sanders’ left, not right (there are more votes there).
So, has Steve seen the light and moved to the left? He was a Reagan Republican while in the Nevada State House. Last time he ran as a hard-core, right wing, conservative Republican. Has he really changed?
Of course not. He is the poster-child for poll-driven politics. One group of voters want this, so he’ll say this to them. Another group of voters want that, so he’ll say that to them.
Then, there’s Floyd Morrow.
Floyd is a Marine Corps veteran of Korea. After his service, he attended the University of Texas and majored in accounting (good background to have for a City that doesn’t know how much money it owes). He did Graduate work at USIU in Human Behavior – another good thing to know as an elected official.
He worked for Ryan Aeronautical Company here in San Diego from 1959-62, was a Deputy City Attorney for 2 yrs and was elected to the San Diego City Council in 1965, serving three terms (until 1977).
Floyd has practiced law and fiddled with building things since then. Unlike his competitors, he’s actually created something unique, obtaining patents (issued in 43 nations including European Union, China and India) for mobile, multiuse, expandable rooms (Patent #5,154,469) in 1992 and a mobile, expandable structure, assembly support system (Patent #6,712,414B2) in 2004.
Floyd has been a board member of the utility watchdog organization UCAN for over twenty years and is President, Founder and still an active member of San Diego - Leon Sister City Society, as well as President of the Mission Valley Rotary (2004-05), and received the “Marv Finch Award” for International Service 2004, 2005 and 2006.
He’s been big in the peace movement since Vietnam. Unfortunately, he has been active in the peace movement again.
Oh, he’s a Democrat.
My Take
Jerry hasn’t done what he said he would do and I don’t know that he will be able to get anything accomplished with the people he has working for him (Kris Michelle excepted, as I’ve always though she was bright – plus, she survived Susan Golding. Oh, and George Biaggi.)
Steve Francis simply wants to be elected Mayor and will say or do just about anything to achieve that goal. That’s just scary.
So, I’m voting for Floyd Morrow.
If enough of you join me, we can force a run-off between Francis and Sanders in November. Won’t that be special.
City Attorney
Jan Goldsmith
Judge Jan Goldsmith was appointed to the San Diego Superior Court in December, 1998. Prior to his appointment, Goldsmith served three terms in the California State Assembly representing a district that included northern San Diego City stretching from Mira Mesa to the Escondido border. During his career in the Assembly, Goldsmith held various leadership positions, but really didn’t accomplish much.
Before his election to the Assembly, Goldsmith held office as Poway’s first elected mayor. In 1998, he made the bonehead move of running for State Treasurer, although he did carry San Diego County.
With no job and no appreciable skills, Goldsmith was appointed to the bench by Pete Wilson shortly after the State Treasurer debacle.
Scott Peters
Scott was a mid-level attorney for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. He jumped to the San Diego County Counsel’s office because the pay was better. Then, he was elected to the City Council.
Scott was chosen as the first City Council President under San Diego's new strong-Mayor form of government. He helped create the pension mess and has said he longs for the days when then-City Attorney Casey Gwinn gave the Council bad (and some say illegal) advice.
Brian Maienschein
Brian graduated Chaparral Elementary School, Twin Peaks Middle School and Poway High School, then was elected to the City Council.
Okay, perhaps not, but he seems that young.
Brian is a lawyer and is active in school and youth programs, including the Poway Unified School District's Safety and Wellness Committee and the San Diego County Bar Association's Children at Risk Committee. Brian serves as Executive Director of Youth Court, for which he received the 1999 District Attorney's Crime Victims Rights Award.
Brain was elected to the 5th City Council District in 2000. He was part of the pension problems too.
Mike Aguirre
Sworn in as San Diego City Attorney on December 6, 2004, Michael Aguirre's legal career spans three decades as a federal prosecutor, fraud victim trial attorney, municipal law expert, U.S. Senate investigator, and public interest lawyer. He also holds a Master's Degree in Public Administration from Harvard University.
Mike was a fairly successful attorney in private practice. He worked hard, but wasn’t particularly well-liked as a Department of Justice Assistant U.S. Attorney in San Diego, although he won a few high-profile cases. He was appointed as assistant counsel to the U.S. Senate's Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, like his hero, Bobby Kennedy.
Aguirre was honored in the Top Attorneys 2006 poll conducted by the San Diego Daily Transcript. In 2005, The Los Angeles Daily Journal Aguirre one of the Top 100 Lawyers in California. In 2001, he was recognized by the Lawyers for Public Justice as a Trial Lawyer of the Year Finalist.
Mike idolizes Cesar Chavez, runs marathons and upsets people.
Analysis
Jan wanted to be anointed as the Republican savior of City Hall. Brian had other plans. Jan got upset that Brian could use bout $250 thousand from a City Council challenge that never materialized. Jan said there was a conspiracy. Then, he took it back, because everyone knows that Mike is the conspiracy guy – that’s why everyone wants to get rid of him. Well, that and the fact that he has claimed that a lot of the pension deals labor union members got with the city are illegal. Labor didn’t like that.
Mike has sued, or threatened to sue just about everyone. Then, he made a big mistake and picked a fight with the Mayor. He even called Jerry “corrupt.” Jerry didn’t like that.
Mike claims he’s supposed to uphold the City Charter like the Attorney General upholds (well, is suppose to uphold) the Constitution. So, anyone who does anything Mike believes violates the Charter has committed a crime. Mike said the City Council, including Brian and Scott committed a crime by voting to underfund the City’s pension. Brian, Scott and the City Council didn’t like that.
Now, everyone’s running against Mike. But, Mike doesn’t care. In fact, he really hasn’t participated in the things one is supposed to participate in during an election. Brian, Scott and Jan don’t like that.
Jan and Brian are fighting over the same conservative Republican voters. That means that Scott and Mike will fight it out in November. Nobody but Mike likes that.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
First District San Diego City Council
I know none of these guys. Probably since they are relative newcomers, rich and Republican. The 1st District is unique. The Council member representing the 1st District needs to deal with seals, infill, parking (especially paid, metered parking) and traffic. Other than that, it’s old, white rich folks pissed off at their neighbors for obstructing their view or tripping over a (Oh, No!) cracked sidewalk.
I know Phil Thalheimer is rich and spent a ton of money to force Scott Peters to a run-off last time. Ostensibly, Phil made his money as owner of a flight training school, which, according to his website, “enjoys revenues of over $3 million per year.”
So, he’s going to spend 1/3rd of one year’s revenues to be a Council member. Ah, to be rich and have nothing better to do. Like Steve Francis, he probably says that he’s not beholden t special interests because most of the money he’s spent is his own.
Unfortunately, often when rich folks self-fund, the interest they serve most is their own.
Prior to flight school, Phil worked in the City’s of San Diego’s Financial Management Department (I’m assuming pre-pension), where he claims to have “worked as a citywide “efficiency expert” working to solve management problems throughout the city government.” I’ve worked at City Hall, and there’s nothing efficient about it, so I’m not certain what to make of this piece of information.
In 1996, he went to work for San Diego Data Processing Corporation (DPC), which is a public/private information and technology company that operates poorly, loses money and provides substandard service (that’s my personal experience).
Oh, the other thing. Phil was Chairman of San Diegans for the Mount Soledad National Memorial, the group that, for what seems the 4th or 5th time, placed a citywide initiative on the ballot to “save” the cross.
As in the past, the courts said, “what part of ‘unconstitutional’ do you not understand?” I’m convinced he did it to bolster his conservative republican credentials.
I had never heard of Marshall Merrifield before this election cycle. He seems to be a nice, albeit geeky, run-of-the-mill rich guy. His background sound impressive:
• Former Municipal Finance Specialist at Kidder Peabody on Wall Street.
• CEO and majority owner of Clark Security Products, the nation’s largest wholesale distributor and installer of commercial security hardware and General Lock, a major import lock manufacturer of commercial grade hardware.
• Co-Founder of BlueWave Security, a manufacturer of the world’s first network access control system based on Wi-Fi technology.
• Co-Founder of Shoreline Studios, creator of live animation for sports television in the US, including the yellow first down line for NFL broadcasts
(as a football fanatic, I’m very impressed with this accomplishment).
His community service is a little on the “I’ll do it for my kids” side, with a dash of, “oh crap, I’m running for office, so I need something impressive sounding” thrown in.
• Co-founded Playground Partners, a non-profit organization that provides curriculum for elementary school lunch recess to teach good sportsmanship and fair play.
• Board member of Magdalena Ecke YMCA.
• Coach for Del Mar Sharks recreational soccer and Del Mar Little League baseball teams.
• Member of Advisory Board of The Security Network.
• Member of San Diego Regional Economic Development Corporation’s Strategic Planning Group.
• Co-Founder South Swell Sports, local lacrosse retail store and sports camps.
Marshall is running as the guy who understands finance and will know how to get the city out of trouble. Trust me, Marshall, there’s a reason no one has ever succeeded with “running government like a business” thing. Businesses exist to make profits. Governments exist to provide services. Two entirely different paradigms.
But, it generally plays well with voters.
Sherri Lightner is co-owner of Lightner Engineering, a small technology hardware and software consulting firm in San Diego. She started her professional career as an Engineering Aide at General Atomics (GA), hired by the High Temperature Gas-Cooled Reactor Division after graduation from UCSD. While working full-time at GA, Sherri was certified as an Engineer in Training and took engineering course work at San Diego State University (SDSU) and UCSD. She was quickly promoted to engineer and then earned a M.S. degree from UCSD. Sherri worked as an engineer in the Structural Engineering Department at GA for eight years and GA's Fusion Division for another five.
Sherri then accepted a senior engineering position with the Structural Dynamics group at Rohr Industries to work on high velocity (ballistic) impact analysis. After five years at Rohr, she returned to GA to work on the New Production Reactor (NPR). After another five years at GA working on the NPR and other projects, Sherri retired from the engineering profession to take up new challenges.
Okay, I’m bored. Anything else?
• La Jolla Community Planning Association (Board member and Secretary)
• La Jolla Town Council (LJTC) (Secretary and Board member)
• La Jolla Town Council Land Use Committee (Chairman)
• La Jolla Shores Association (Chairman)
• La Jolla Historical Society Board and Historicity Committee (member)
• LJTC Parks, Beaches and Beautification Committees (member)
• Community Enhancement Committee (Neighborhood Code Compliance Trained Volunteer)
• Coastal Development Permit Review Committee (member)
• Planned District Ordinance Committee (Secretary)
• La Jolla Shores Permit Review Committee (member)
• La Jolla Town Council Foundation Board (member)
• NoPaidParking.Org anti-paid parking group (founding member, March 2007)
*As of November 2007. Sherri resigned all executive positions after declaring her candidacy for City Council District One.
• Girl Scout Leader (5 years, honored as "Girl Scout Leader of the Year")
• Sunday school teacher (15 years)
• Soccer Team Parent (>10 years)
• Muirlands Middle School Foundation (Treasurer, 3 years)
• YMCA (honored as "Fundraiser of the Year")
• American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) (25-year member)
That’s code for “labor union.”
• La Jolla Kiwanis (member, >5 years)
• La Jolla United Methodist Church (16-year member)
• Scripps-Mesa United Methodist Church (Chair, Board of Trustees)
• Schuler Family Foundation trustee (local charitable organization)
• Past Community Positions
• La Jolla Town Council (President and Vice President)
• La Jolla Traffic and Transportation Board (Secretary)
• La Jolla Coastal Access and Parking Board (Chairman)
• Riford Foundation Board (member)
• LJTC Community Plan Update Committee (Chairman)
• LJTC Ad Hoc Parking District Policy Committee (Chairman)
• LJmeters.Org anti-paid parking group (founding member, 2002)
Sheri, you have far too much time on your hands and far too little money to do anything more than force a run-off between Marshall and Phil (if that)
My Take
I don’t care much, but I think I like the guy who owned the company that made it easier to see where the 1st down marker is during football games on TV.
Third District San Diego City Council
I’m sorry, but this is ridiculous. Two gay males with the opportunity to be the 1st openly gay male on the City Council, and the community (GLBT and otherwise) is split down the middle because Todd is supported by Nicole Ramirez Murray (or, Murray-Ramirez, it keeps changing).
And Whit burn has been Chair of the San Diego Democratic Club? Then, Jess Durfee steers the Democratic Central Committee’s endorsement to Steve?
Are you kidding me? Actually, it’s par for the course.
Todd Gloria, an aide to Congresswoman Susan Davis, is a third generation San Diegan with a reputation for attending as many as 20 community meetings a month on Davis' behalf. His connections in the community run deep.
Whit burn, who often reminds folks that he was a journalist and currently is a PR flack for the Red Cross (didn’t Jerry Sanders have something to do with the Red Cross?) has picked up City Councilmember Donna Frye. First, there was a rumor that Frye gave her endorsement because of her affinity for outsiders-any outsider. But then Frye said that she's known Whit burn for a long time and that her intuition leads her to believe he'll be a better City Council member.
The fault, dear Donna, lies not in our stars, but in our selves.
Whit burn says that he wants to "ask the tough questions of city officials." Great. Then what?
Then, there’s the asinine argument that Todd is too close to business.
Hello? Infill? Intrastructure? Who pays for it?
My Take
Vote for Todd, damn it.
We’ll probably have a chance to do the whole thing over again in November.
Seventh District San Diego City Council
Are there any issues here, or is it all about personalities? Marti Emerald, according to April Boling, was out finding where one could find the best cup of coffee in the City while she (April) was ferreting out evil-doers in the City’s pension scandal.
Never mind that she was appointed by evil-doers and the report her little group issued was watered down from a one-alarm to a tepid “hey, look, please, uh, if you have a minute, uh, well, never mind?”
Besides, I want to know where that cup of coffee is.
Let’s be real. This is a head-to-head battle between a moderate- to liberal, labor-backed Democrat and a moderate- to conservative, business and downtown-backed Republican.
Most 7th District residents are somewhere in between.
My Take
Judy McCarty and Jim Madaffer have represented the 7th since I can remember. They fall on the April side of the political spectrum.
So, if 7th District voters like the way things have been since the 1980’s, they should vote for April. If they want something different, vote for Marti.
Don’t vote for David Tos or Bill Daniel, or there will be a run-off between April and Marti in November.
But, of course, that’s exactly what will happen.
