The 2020 San Diego Mayoral Contest: Will We Move Forward?
The race for mayor of San Diego got a lot more interesting on Wednesday. Congressman Scott Peters decided to not run--he wants to go back to DC--and an angry Attorney Cory Briggs took to twitter to announce he was jumping in.
Until yesterday, next year’s March 3 primary was shaping up to be a three way contest between Democrats walking a fine line between placating business interests and newly-energized social justice activists.
Republicans, if they could find a candidate, were going to be stuck with having to make their case in the context of the framing asserted by Democrats. (Unless they could persuade Carl DeMaio to run again, in which case real world considerations wouldn’t apply.)
Assemblyman Todd Gloria, having guided the city through the aftermath of the Filner flameout, positioned himself as the champion of increasing the minimum wage, and leader of the movement to establish a Climate Action Plan was--I think--best positioned to run for mayor as a champion of progressive governance.
City Councilwoman Barbara Bry, who is no shrinking violet when it comes to embracing social justice issues, has her entrepreneurial background as her best asset.
Scott Peters name recognition (and network) stemming from his history of holding elective offices and reputation as a bipartisan advocate was thought to be enough to ward off insinuations that he was responsible for the city’s employee pension troubles. Now he’s out of the picture.
And then there’s Cory Briggs:
I emailed Briggs this morning to make sure he was running. Although his response did not include the words “I am running for Mayor…” it certainly seems he’s gonna do it.
Housing--or the lack thereof--has already emerged as a central issue for this contest, thanks to a developing consensus around the concept of stripping away the constraints keeping densification/infill from accelerating.
The current Mayor’s State of the City speech earlier this week called for eliminating building height limits near transit (outside of coastal neighborhoods), cutting parking minimums and allowing unlimited density for low-income projects.
As Andrew Keatts at Voice of San Diego observed:
Together, the reforms could elevate development fights from a handful of skirmishes in isolated neighborhoods based on discrete proposals into a full-blown citywide debate that defines local politics.
The Mayor’s ‘get it done’ attitude during Tuesday’s speech at the Balboa Theater may have inspired those in the room, but in other parts of the city people were gritting their teeth.
The (largely imagined) autonomy of the ‘city of villages’ concept central to the self image of the San Diego is challenged by concept of a ‘screw it, we’re building’ mentality.
The fight against new developments in Clairemont and the Morena Boulevard corridor have played up fears about invasions by ‘others’ and property value depreciation. As we’ve seen from the last few years in our Trumpian wannabe dystopia, Americans are easily moved by such tactics.
Cory Brigg’s outrage--though I’m sure he’s repulsed by fear of the other/unknown tactics--could easily tap into this sort of resentment aimed at city hall.
Given San Diego’s history of doing ‘good things’ coincidentally favoring our landed gentry, I think Briggs is right to sound the alarm.
As homeless advocate Michael McConnell has repeatedly pointed out, the gap between what Mayor Faulconer promises and what gets done is huge.
One unresolved issue raised by the ‘build our way out of homelessness’ strategy concerns the lack (or disrepair) of infrastructure to support infill development. As Seth Combs at City Beat points out, we don’t have enough money in the budget to keep what we already have fixed up.
Those ‘outrageous fees (or requirements)’ developers complain about are how we pay for the for increased demands on our infrastructure. (We can thank Proposition 13 in large part for the current system in place.)
Having said that, I do have a certain amount of faith in Councilmember Georgette Gomez’ sense of right and wrong when it comes to the people who she represents.
Like I said, things are about to get interesting. I can only hope the result of resolving this contradiction is NOT nothing happening. We’re already too good at that.
And in other news...
You go girl…
Pelosi privately refers to Trump as the “whiner in chief." She’s questioned his manhood. She calls out Trump’s lies to his face and openly wonders whether he’s fit for the job. She mocks Trump for his privileged upbringing and his lack of empathy for the less fortunate. She jokes with other senior Democrats that if the American public saw how Trump acts in private, they’d “want to make a citizen’s arrest.”
And by proposing Trump reschedule the annual State of the Union address until the government shutdown is over, as she did Wednesday, Pelosi has pulled her most aggressive gambit yet.
After more than two years of Trump’s whipsaw presidency, Pelosi is saying what perhaps every Democrat feels should be said to Trump: No, no and no. Politico
Speaking of promises…
Anybody got a mirror?
