|
 irectly after the March primary election, I set upon
a personal quest: to determine who was really the better environmental
choice for Mayor of San Diego. Even if this race (Judge Murphy
vs. Supervisor Roberts) can be characterized as say, Bush vs.
Reagan, I still feel I have duty to figure out which one would
be best.
 Here's
the thing about political endorsements. It's a lot like virginity:
you don't want to waste it. But unless it's a religious commitment,
in politics, if you aren't willing to use it, you will never
get any action. And there you are: with your virtue intact and
status quo in charge.
In my view,
an endorsement is not some kind of award, but merely an indicator
of who someone thinks is better in any particular race. Sure,
maybe this farmer's daughter will be violated somehow along the
way. But it is simply not possible for me to be neutral about
the importance of environmental issues for the mayor of the city
I live in.
Since everyone
is concerned about getting screwed in politics, environmentalists
have gotten both candidates for Mayor of the City of San Diego
on the record on as many issues as possible. We networked and
interviewed as many people as possible about their true natures,
commitments, and style.
The Murphy
for Mayor campaign sent out a press release in July, outlining
the Judge's "Environmental Vision." The same day, I
received from opponent Roberts' Supervisorial office a fax of
copies of Board actions to form "Project Clean Water,"
and another entitled "Mowing Down Pollution" (a trade-in
program of the Air Pollution Control District, where they are
seeking 500 lucky San Diegans to trade-in polluting gas lawn
mowers for cleaner electric ones).
Some call
it pandering. But after years of getting little to nothing, do
I care what you call it? Hopefully, the electoral process is
finally compelling politicians to commit to action on clean air
and water and saving our remaining natural landscapes.
In Roberts'
case, especially with the water memo, one wonders why it took
five years.
When I first
started focusing on the Mayor's race, I sent out an email posing
the question, "What does the City of San Diego need more
at this moment in time, the Judge or the architect?"
At first glance,
at the simplest level, the most obvious leap to make would be
the architect. Facing an era of great growth, the architect could
be the one best suited to shape the vision and build the city.
But what if you get a mediocre architect? In the end, architects
can only build to the visions of the project owners. Even if
the vision itself is from Roberts, who would be his "project
owners"?
Even if I
truly believed that Roberts would side with nature and quality
of life over his major contributors and peers enough of the time,
I still don't feel I know why his "urban vision" would
be better than the Judge's "2020 vision." Roberts may
be the better mechanic, but what I'm thinking the city needs
more now is a better listener and better arguer on behalf of
the public. Someone who's willing to draw some lines and stand
up for them.
Ironically,
I really think that if we started to make it clear that we weren't
going to allow growth to continue to destroy our remaining natural
resources, this could actually provide the true streamlining
the building industry says it craves. Just imagine if we didn't
have to perpetually fight over what was going to be saved or
destroyed.
Supervisor
Roberts may be sincere about "Smart Growth." But I
don't exactly see it happening at the County, do you? We are
certainly making some progress on habitat acquisition, and while
that's a critical piece of the puzzle, has the growth itself
gotten any smarter in the County? The issue in the City - and
the fundamental issue of Smart Growth is what's going to be built
and what's going to be destroyed? Who's going to profit and who's
going to pay? It's time to have a Mayor who is both friendly
to commerce and has the greatest possible freedom to stand up
to the vested interests that continue to chip and chop away at
our landscapes and ultimately our quality of life.
Oddly enough,
one of the main things I learned over the last couple of months
is that I had posed the question incorrectly. Roberts has been
out of architecture for longer than the Judge has been out of
politics.
The choice
is really between the Judge and the politician. Some have argued
that the Judge is just as much the politician, having served
- as Roberts has on the City Council for a term in the 80s. But
he has been as far removed from politics as Roberts has from
architecture. And it shows. In many areas it's clear he's been
out of politics for a while. The Judge has a tendency to answer
questions curtly, yes or no. He also resorts to saying that he
doesn't know. It's actually pretty refreshing, if not "slick."
In reviewing the video of the candidates' debate, I couldn't
help thinking, "Poor Judge Murphy, he's actually trying
to give a true answer not just what people want to hear."
Roberts has
the "skill" of talking glowingly for minutes without
saying very much. It sounds good, but at the end, you realize
he may not have really answered the question. It's kind of akin
to eating the menu instead of the meal.
Some environmentalists
have argued that we just don't know the Judge well enough to
throw in with him - that neither one of the choices merits the
honor of an endorsement. But politics is always problematic for
both purists and those dominated by risk-reduction considerations.
Both candidates
have a mixed environmental record. In looking to determine what
is pandering vs. what are valid promises, some advocate only
looking at their voting records; that is the only place you find
what they did. True enough. But there is something else vital
to be learned: whether or not the person has a reputation for
keeping their word, changing their minds (How do they learn?
Do they learn?), how do they use deception, meanness or other
slimy behavior?
In networking
around town - and including at least one enemy of the Judge who
made it a point to go out and dig up dirt I was able to find
few who questioned that the Judge was a man of his word. The
rap was, "He may be against you, but he doesn't lie about
it, or tell you he's going to do one thing and then do another."
I find that astonishing in politics today. That alone is one
of the best reasons I've found to vote for the Judge environmentalist
or not.
Roberts, on
the other hand, has a reputation for being "mean."
At least a dozen different individuals in positions to know have
described him as "vindictive." I have heard that more
than one endorsement in the race has been based upon threats
of retribution. While this gives me some pause, if no one is
willing to stand up to this kind of bullying, then it can indeed
carry the day.
In an uncertain
world, written commitments - combined with the Judge's reputation
is as much political contraception as a gal could ask for.
The Judge
represents the chance for something better for San Diego that
I have come to believe is worth taking. 
|
