|
 ate traffic? Want clean water? (Who wouldn't?) Clean
beaches? Stop sprawl? The major local political campaign themes
are beginning to emerge for the March 7th primary. In a good
economy, growth, specifically the impacts of badly managed growth,
is on the minds of San Diegans.
 As moneyed-candidates'
sales and marketing ads begin to hit the airways in earnest,
it dawned upon me how few members of the voting public know anything
about the candidate's real records, temperaments, and day-to-day
interests, vs. the motherhood and apple pie claims being put
forth to match polls and focus groups being conducted with great
earnestness around town. As the ads, mailers and signs descend,
the feedback mechanisms for matching the marketing messages against
the reality of day-to-day politics are few and far between.
Where
have all the candidates been and what have they been doing, say,
for the last five years? What kinds of interests -- volunteer
or otherwise -- have they taken, if any, in the issues they are
now touting for action?
On all
of the candidate questionnaires coming back to Sierra Club and
San Diego League of Conservation Voters, every single candidate
fairly gushed with support for clean water measures, especially
the installation of low-flow storm drain diverters to keep polluted
runoff off of local beaches. But why, then, did the council have
to be essentially publicly shamed into taking action by local
community activists? Why are there so many polluted and impaired
water bodies and precious few additional resources for cleanup
or prevention? Where were any of these people at hearings or
other events? Have they made it a priority in their lives, careers
and agendas so far?
Don't
get me wrong. I'm not against candidates who learn from the process
how to make better decisions over time and integrate issues into
their agendas. It can only be a positive thing to have candidates
finally listing environmental and quality-of-life issues as key
concerns and now promising action. Elected officials do deserve
credit for getting on board when they do. But behind the scenes
of every vote, there is the issue of what kind of leadership
was provided. Where did they come from in the negotiations? Do
they genuflect to these issues the way most of us do, but without
making the often harder choices to help change our behavior?
What
I do have a problem with is taking credit for actions where the
efforts have either been marginal, ineffective, or they had to
be dragged kicking and screaming into a new political reality
for an issue.
For
instance, Ron Roberts for Mayor touts that he, "Founded
'Smart Growth' Coalition which brings the environmental, building
and business community together to protect our quality of life
through finding solutions to growth, housing, and transportation
issues."
This
so-called coalition essentially melted down and hasn't seen the
light of day for many months. There have been no substantive
policy initiatives coming from it. Where's the beef, Ron? Where
were you when it came to resolving the differences between the
developers and environmentalists when the committee process broke
down? San Diego needs a "Smart Growth Coalition," but
I don't see it happening through the effort you are touting.
Another
angle is what candidates are not talking about. Roberts' campaign
has the interesting approach of promoting high-profile policy
statements over which he would have little to no jurisdiction
as mayor (health care, gas taxes). And how much of the general
public know that his office is a veritable shrine to baseball?
Sometimes,
candidates responses simply don't add up.
Karen
McElliott, carrying Barbara Warden's endorsement for her district
5 council seat, has had some disjointed responses about dealing
with growth. In answers to questions by the Sierra Club, she
stated that she would put additional resources into "providing
affordable housing in our urban core." Yet in answer to
the question, "Should infrastructure facilities be paid
for before increasing densities in existing communities to accommodate
projected growth increases?" she had a one word answer,
"No." Hmmmm. Just how is that going to work? Dumping
growth, low income growth by the way, into the urban core without
infrastructure? Not exactly a smart growth platform.
I saw
an ad for Barbara Warden for Mayor. Showing Warden in "action
settings" in the community, on the screen it rolled a title
about reducing sprawl. "What in the world has Warden done
to stop sprawl?" I wondered aloud. I've been asking people
-- not just environmentalists. I haven't turned up anything yet.
Perhaps she was proposing something better for the future.
I was
also surprised to see Warden seeming to call for tax increases
on developers. This is something I also haven't known her for
in the past. On her website it states, "I would also implement
a plan that calls on developers to pay their 'fair share' to
reduce congestion, and contribute local dollars to preserve open
space as a way to attract more state and local funds."
One
is tempted to ask how much she has pursued policies to achieve
this during her tenure at City Council. I had understood that
Warden's position was that developers did not have to pay any
additional dollars toward open space beyond the exactions agreed
to in the MSCP (Multiple Species Conservation Plan), which is
also touted on their website with an incorrect number of acres
for preservation. (The website states that 582,000 acres of land
will be preserved. This number is actually the size of the entire
county 900 square miles!). As far as funds to acquire the remaining
most-critical acreages subject to short term development pressures,
the plan has gone begging for local acquisition funds and Warden
has not yet put forth any proposals to fund it. Warden also supported
the so-called "No Surprises" clause required by developers
specifically as assurances that there would be no going back
to that well, if more land or money were needed.
Credit
is also claimed by Warden who "Fought successfully for the
funding required to make San Diego's sewage system meet the Clean
Water Act requirements." Ahem. The "system" still
doesn't meet CWA requirements. Last I checked, the City resisted
all the way and it took legal action by the volunteers of the
Sierra Club to compel enforcement. At some point, I'll bet Warden
voted for the funding that was required to comply with the court
settlement order.
Next
comes a pet peccadillo of mine. Having served for many years
now as Chair of the backwater city citizen's committee known
as the Waste Management Advisory Board, I have long followed
the region's solid waste and recycling sagas. According to Warden's
website, she "Pushed to expand recycling city-wide and make
greenery recycling available to as many homes as possible."
Citizens lobbied the City Council for years on this issue --
with no luck. I, along with other community representatives from
the League of Women Voters and the WMAB, met with Warden's staff
about expanding curbside recycling. They opposed it. I can't
believe she's taking credit for it now! Warden herself wouldn't
even meet with us. The expansion is happening now, not due to
the efforts of our elected leaders on the City Council, but mostly
because State Assembly member Howard Wayne included funding from
the state level. I'm sure Warden supported that bill, but she
has not had as a priority over the years to expand recycling.
Next
we come to every candidates' favorite "whipping boy"
issue: traffic.
Just
about everyone has got "religion" about doing something
about traffic. Problem is, past city councils have not done so
effectively. SANDAG (upon which Warden has served) has not done
so effectively. And Warden's listed record of accomplishments
on these issues makes her look like a tax and spend Democrat:
"Gathered over $300 million,"
"Accumulated over $110 million," "Secured over
$180 million," "Secured funds from a developer...."
And
it was all money for more freeways. While transit gets a brief
mention in her platform, the common theme of her record -- and
most incumbents -- is that more money -- from all sources, for
more roads --is the answer, with transit as an afterthought.
That approach hasn't cut it for the last ten years and it won't
work for the next. This is the perhaps the most defining characteristic
of "Los Angelization": local politicos and the electorate
need to come to grips with the fact that perpetual taxing and
spending and building roads with token transit can never fundamentally
work. That is exactly what gets us "Los Angelization."
Treating transit like a leftover -- and supporting approaches
that are not based on solid market research data -- will never
help get people out of their cars, and forces everyone else to
be stuck there as well.
More
than ever, we need innovative approaches to transportation planning,
taxing and spending. But Warden and McElliott, among many others,
are part of the status quo that hasn't quite digested the fact
that more roads equals more traffic. As long as transit planning
is disconnected from mobility market analysis, and land use and
transportation decisions remained disconnected, we will continue
to hurtle down the exact same road to sprawl-based traffic congestion
hell as the rest of Southern California.
But
that's what politics has become: disconnected. Platforms are
not designed to be workable, but to paint a picture for what
has become a mere popularity contest based on emotional trigger
points. Maybe we should be offering awards for the best political
marketing job.
Readers
are invited to submit their collisions between rhetoric and reality
for contemplation. Please do email or send them in. 
|
.