Mayor Todd Gloria has officially kicked off his 2024 re-election bid with the backing of more than 40 organizations and elected officials. It looks to me like his campaign did its due diligence in rounding up much of the who’s who of San Diego liberals and labor.
The announcement’s press release included a quote from the Mayor amounting to his sales pitch to voters.
“Having inherited a host of long unaddressed challenges in our city, we have rolled up our sleeves, tackled those issues head-on, gotten things done, and moved San Diego forward. This marks progress, but it’s not mission accomplished – and that’s why I’m running for re-election,” said Mayor Todd Gloria. “I ran for Mayor to do the hard work and to create a San Diego that finally works, and is better for all of us. With four more years, I know we can do just that.”
Todd Gloria’s been around for a while, having served two terms on the city council, including serving as interim mayor in the year after Bob Filner crashed and burned. He went on to get elected to two terms in the State Assembly. And when he ran for mayor in 2020, 56% of the electorate bought his pitch.
The best laid plans of just about everybody were put aside as the COVID virus tore through the population. As Mayor, Gloria stood behind what -at the time– was the scientific consensus about which actions to take. The alternative was to follow the lead of “experts” with a MAGA agenda.
Unfortunately, the nihilist wing of the Republican party decided that governments’ responses to a pandemic were worthy topics for inclusion in their culture wars strategy. “Grassroots” groups emerged to organize around the idea that government mandates were oppressive.
Police departments, who originally complained about not being first in line for doses of a newly created vaccine, flipped on the issue, setting a poor example and enhancing divisiveness in communities across the country.
Gloria was caught in the middle of this artificially created crisis, generally going with the mandates, while ‘wink-wink’ deals with law enforcement were made. A tenet of the anti-vaxx movement was retribution against officials who didn’t see things their way. And Todd Gloria is still on the list of public officials who are blamed for “taking” something away.
It’s not like Gloria didn’t have a group of haters circling around as he’s risen through the ranks of politics. Back when he was on the city council he was regularly excoriated and nicknamed Toad” Gloria by a small but noisy group of antagonists who complained about kowtowing to “downtown interests.” (Downtown was part of his district.)
For 2024, I don’t see a candidate with enough of a profile or following in the city to seriously challenge the incumbent mayor in an election. I’ve cast a wide net with sources and casual contacts over the past few days and have yet to hear of a likely candidate with a long-shot probability.
That doesn’t mean there aren’t groups who want him characterized as public enemy number one.
First up are the NIMBYs and assorted derivatives who will tell you they want more housing and then turn around with a list of demands making construction impossible. Or opposing new construction because it’s not all designated for lower income residents. They spent time in recent weeks getting signatures on petitions aimed at preventing SB10’s density elements from being included in Mayor Gloria’s Housing Action Plan.
SB 10 allows up to 10 homes per multi-family-zoned parcel in transit-rich areas through a streamlined process along with the potential for additional homes on single-family zoned parcels in transit-rich areas. (The additional homes would be allowed subject to certain regulations, including the provision of onsite affordable homes.)
Densifying existing neighborhoods unleashes a multi-headed hydras of opposition, all of which amount to “no.”
Legalizing kinds of housing banned by zoning laws with single family as the default zoning means duplexes, townhomes and smaller apartment buildings can be built. This type of construction is called the "missing middle" and is meant to fill the gap between single-family homes and high-rise apartments.
That’s changing in San Diego, and there are voters who are angry that “something” is being taken from them by the government generally and the Mayor in particular. They show up at city sponsored informational sessions and have a history of disrupting discussion and name calling.
Whether or not these folks vote and whether or not a candidate will emerge who satisfies their desires is, at this point, an unanswered question.
The city’s plan for ending homeless tent housing on sidewalks has riled up some activists, many of whom are pledging to do everything in their power to unseat the mayor. One angry person called for the mayor and his press secretary to be tried for murder. (I thought that sort of irrationality was limited to MAGAts, but I’ve been proven wrong.)
They're right to critique planning and execution of the plan, but the deal is done (until a possible future court decision), and the mayor will end up being either a hero or a zero in coming months.
As angry as homeless advocates are, there’s another segment of the population that’s also angry about encampments not being removed sooner. And they have money. And lawyers.
From Thursday’s Union-Tribune:
A group of seven downtown businesses has filed a claim against the city of San Diego, seeking $2.5 million in damages related to the deepening homeless crisis they say has decimated their livelihoods. The businesses want San Diego officials to clean out the encampments in their neighborhood or they will consider taking the city to court.
“They just want the laws enforced in and around their homes and businesses so they’re not faced every day with crime, drugs, extremely unsanitary conditions created by the homeless encampments and the persons that are living in them,” said Craig L. Combs, an attorney for the firms, restaurants and one condominium that filed a claim against the city.
Trust me on this, these claimants represent the tip of a very large iceberg. There is widespread anger coming from people encountering encampments. I suspect some of these people have bought into the right wing thinking that being homeless is a choice. Others just want something to be done–now.
The problems the city faces with unhoused humans can’t be solved by its mayor. People think he should have a magic wand making all these unpleasant sights go away. After some piddling around, Gloria has made some choices. They won’t be enough and he probably knows this.
It will take every level of government working in concert, along with private charities, congregations, and civic groups to actually END homelessness as it is presently constituted. We’re looking at a problem akin to bailing out a leaking boat with a Starbucks cup.
Increasing numbers of people are being pushed onto the streets, thanks to an corporatist economic outlook including “trickle down” and other fantasies. Taxing wealth is, we’re told, the sure way to doom and destruction. And with the right screaming about every existing social program being led by “communists and Marxists” getting an equitable housing policy will be a big lift.
Getting back to Todd Gloria, I think he’s a smart politician, who’s been burned when stepping out of the “get along to go along” mode. Former Mayor Kevin Faulconer left a big turd under his desk for Gloria, aka the “deal” for 101 Ash Street, and it doesn’t matter what the city government ends up doing at this point, it’s Todd Gloria’s fault.
I remember the struggle to raise the local minimum wage and get paid sick days. Gloria was sold on the idea that small compromises would ease what was then furious pushback from business entities.
He compromised, and nothing happened except that low wage workers got less, much later than promised. Gloria spent serious time drumming up support from activists beyond organized labor and now they were seeing this proposal getting the San Diego “let it die on the vine” treatment. The so-called business community left him twisting in the wind, dodging potshots from the left flank of the party. It was enough to make any politician guy shy about back ideas down the road.
That’s how this city works. No matter what the partisan makeup of the City Council is, big ideas get buried. One only need look at what’s (not) happened with the police reforms overwhelmingly supported at the ballot box in 2020 to see this process in action.
I’m not letting Todd Gloria off the hook. He shoulda/coulda aimed higher on policies regarding city problems. He shoulda/coulda been willing to strategically call out the institutions and individuals keeping real progress from happening. This would involve risk, and he’s all-too-often risk averse.
I have a vision for San Diego that goes beyond the standard economic framework (more industry, blah, blah) to say our future lies in remaking our physical being. I’d like to see our cityscape look a lot more like Paris.* France than Los Angeles in 10 years. (Sans riots)
* Getting people out of their cars and traveling by foot or bicycle has drastically changed Parisian daily life for the better as the city continues to divest from its formerly car-centric ways. Car use in Paris is down 40% over the last 10 years, air pollution down 45%. Cycle lanes are up by a factor of five. 300 school streets with no traffic in front are coming. Initiatives to make streets safer for children and older residents are the norm, not the exception.
Ooh, la la.
More sidewalk cafes. More kids walking to school. Wine at city board meetings. More of a culture of doing things together.
We’ve got the food, let’s work on the ambiance.
Other Important Stories You Should Read
***
SCOTUS majority ends affirmative action, another long-sought conservative goal Via Chris Geidner at Law Dork. If you’re going to read any of the newly minted legal experts, read this substantive analysis first.
Under Roberts’s reasoning, then, race-conscious admissions policies have always been unconstitutional. Which, of course, is what he thinks, so this decision ultimately isn’t surprising. The only real surprising thing is that he was unwilling to say so.
The decision — as weakly as it was presented to the nation — will nonetheless have immediate and potentially dramatic effects.
***
Michael Smolens: Study boosts case for rental assistance, guaranteed income in San Diego Via the Union-Tribune.
“The real failure is we’re not really preventing people from becoming homeless in the first place,” said Supervisor Terra Lawson-Remer, who spearheaded the rental assistance program with Supervisor Joel Anderson.
A study by Serving Seniors, a San Diego nonprofit, released two nearly two years ago gave momentum to the concept of this kind of rental subsidy.
The expansion of the county program seems particularly timely. The results of this year’s point-in-time count of homeless people released three weeks ago showed the number of unhoused seniors has grown dramatically.
***
Prosecutors are prepared to hit Trump and his allies with new charges, sources say Via Andrew Feinberg in the UK Independent. Subhead: “Prosecutors could bring between 30 to 45 additional criminal charges against the former president in the coming weeks, The Independent has learned”
The team of federal prosecutors working under Special Counsel Jack Smith is currently prepared to add an “additional 30 to 45 charges” in addition to the 37-count indictment brought against Mr Trump on 8 June, either in a superseding indictment in the same Florida court or in a different federal judicial district. In either case, they would do so using evidence against the ex-president that has not yet been publicly acknowledged by the department, including other recordings prosecutors have obtained which reveal Mr Trump making incriminating statements.
Additionally, it is understood that Mr Smith’s team is ready to bring charges against several of the attorneys who have worked for Mr Trump, including those who aided the ex-president in his push to ignore the will of voters and remain in the White House despite having lost the 2020 election.
***
Time Off: The next posting at Word & Deeds will be next Wednesday, unless something REALLY big happens
***
Words & Deeds publishes five days (m-f) every week, with an occasional weekend or guest post.
****
You can follow me at:
Post —→DougPorter@wordsdeedsblogger
Tribel ——> DougP Porter@dougporter506
Mastodon ——> DougPorter506@mastodon.social
Spoutible —>@dougporter506
Facebook —----> https://www.facebook.com/WordsAndDeedsBlog
Email me at WritetoDougPorter@Gmail.com
I’m one of the more than 1,400 San Diegans who have sent emails to the Mayor and council urging them not to implement state Senate Bill (SB) 10.
My reasons for opposing this poorly-written legislation generally align with those of Neighbors For A Better San Diego, a group I helped organize more than two years ago in response to the construction of a seven-unit apartment complex on a small, single-family lot in Talmadge.
But my comments here reflect my own views in these issues.
First, I urge everyone — whether they support, oppose or have no position on SB 10 — to read the text of the Mayor’s proposed SB 10 implementation and the critique of that legislation posted on the Neighbors website at www.nfabsd.org.
And I’d like to make the following points in response to Doug’s commentary:
1) “That doesn’t mean there aren’t groups who want him characterized as public enemy number one.”
I’m pretty confident that tens of thousands — if not more — voters are deeply disappointed and disillusioned with the Mayor’s inability to make any noticeable impact on homelessness. I think he’s utterly failed to built the transitional, very-low, and low-income housing — with supportive services — that we desperately need to start reducing homelessness. Other evidence of his failure to effectively lead our city include the Ash Street debacle the stalled Civic Center revitalization plan, the city’s $5 billion infrastructure deficit, the pathetic state of public transit, and his willful failure to solicit and incorporate public input into his decision-making. But I also blame Council President Sean Elo Rivera and the council in general for failing to exercise the independent oversight required to make our strong-mayor system function as promised.
2) “First up are the NIMBYs and assorted derivatives who will tell you they want more housing and then turn around with a list of demands making construction impossible. Or opposing new construction because it’s not all designated for lower income residents.“
Critics of the city’s “bonus ADU program,” it’s “Sustainable Development Zones,” and SB 9 and 10 have from the start of this debate put forth specific strategies for increasing the city’s housing supply, including our support for state regulations that allow homeowners to build an ADU and/or JADU (without off-street parking if the owner chooses) on properties in neighborhoods zoned for single-family homes. We have encouraged the construction of mulit-unit/mixed used development on and near our under-used transit corridors, especially along El Cajon Blvd and University Ave. We especially support efforts by non-profits and city government to build much-needed supportive housing near transit and in areas that can be served by the efficient use of jitneys and other creative transit strategies, that could actually make it possible for some residents to live without a personal vehicle, thus realistically reducing the need for parking.
“SB 10 allows up to 10 homes per multi-family-zoned parcel in transit-rich areas through a streamlined process along with the potential for additional homes on single-family zoned parcels in transit-rich areas. (The additional homes would be allowed subject to certain regulations, including the provision of onsite affordable homes.)”
Our single-family neighborhoods were not designed, engineered, or built to absorb the type of development allowed by SB 10. These neighborhoods cannot accommodate up to twelve housing units (ten units in a three-story building with an additional two ADUs) on a single family lot) with no off-street parking. Among other unacceptable consequences, development on that scale is incompatible with the city’s Climate Action Plan and Urban Tree Canopy programs because it allows developers to strip single family lots of mature trees without meaningful replanting, turning the property into a concrete and brick heat island. The lack of any required off-street parking boosts developer and investor profits buy ignores the reality of our city’s woefully inadequate transit system, our decrepit and over-capacity streets, our lack of parks, rec centers and other basic public amenities, and our city’s multi-billion dollar infrastructure deficit.
3) “Legalizing kinds of housing banned by zoning laws with single family as the default zoning means duplexes, townhomes and smaller apartment buildings can be built. This type of construction is called the "missing middle" and is meant to fill the gap between single-family homes and high-rise apartments.”
Yes, SB 10 is designed to provide more of the so-called “Missing Middle”, with a mix of townhomes, duplex’s, courtyards, and multi story buildings that “blend” with existing single-family homes. If such measured, thoughtful, street-by-street development was in fact required by the Mayor’s proposed implementation language, I seriously doubt there would be any organized or full-throated opposition to SB 10 implementation. But the Mayor and his “planning” department are not requiring that sensible approach to densification. Based on our experience with the city’s failed “bonus ADU” program, for-profit developers will build only the maximum 10- or 12-unit projects, because maximum density yields maximum profits.
Perhaps worst of all, the Mayor’s proposed SB 10 implementation includes language that prohibits future city councils from reducing or making any changes to the upzoning imposed by SB 10. Such “poison pill” language that strips our policy makers of the ability to rethink density and development based on unforeseen consequences is contrary to accepted land-use and planning goals and an unacceptable intrusion on representative government..
As long as our Mayor, city council, and their city “planners” are unwilling to engage on these valid concerns, I and thousands of other San Diegans will fight the proposed implementation of SB 10.