Government Gangsterism in San Diego

The news of indictments involving associates of Mexican businessman Susumo Azano makes for entertaining reading.  There is a trail of illegal campaign donations to various mayoral candidates funneled through a straw-donor and a social media guru.  The U-T is all over the story, with the best overall description of the case published in Sunday's paper.  I also want to give credit to Dave Maass, formerly of San Diego City Beat, who first broke the story of questionable campaign contributions by Azano in 2012.  The alleged motive for illegally funneling campaign contributions was so that Azano could slow down water front projects and gain a controlling interest in them after they ran into political trouble. From the U-T:

The prosecutor’s statement for the first time specifies a larger motive behind the financing scheme — creating California’s version of Miami’s tropical playground. 

While federal authorities have not identified the donor, court documents contain enough detail to indicate it is José Susumo Azano Matsura, a wealthy Mexican citizen who supplies surveillance equipment to the Mexican military and owns construction companies based in the state of Jalisco. 

The prosecutor said a candidate — who sources have identified as former Mayor Bob Filner — told the businessman that he didn’t have jurisdiction over the bayfront, but he may be able to help by holding up development of the Navy Broadway Complex so the businessman could gain control of the lease.

Further, one of Azano's associates, Ernesto Encinas, allegedly wanted to ensure that the new mayor installed a police chief to his liking in return for the contributions.

The motive of Encinas, who retired from the department in 2009 and now owns security consulting businesses, apparently was to install a new chief more amenable to issues surrounding alcohol licenses and entertainment venues to help his businesses.

Now these guilty parties are innocent until proven otherwise.  But the U.S. District Attorney would not have presented the indictments if their theory of the crime was not credible, and that is the real crime.  The rule of law is degenerating both nationally and locally when the success of business ventures is dependent on the good will of elected and appointed officials.  It opens the door for further corruption when we lack clear standards and processes that allow projects to go forward.  I wrote earlier about Filner's penchant for interfering with already approved projects.  The U-T chronicled a long list of its own.  Does anyone doubt that Filner lacked the power to disrupt the bayfront project?

Now there is news that Filner was quietly trying to remove Police Chief Landsdowne. It is not proved or known whether this was in response to Encinas' request.  But why should it matter.  The police view on licensing shouldn't be based on personal opinion or personalities, but on objective criteria such as arrests in the area for drunk and disorderly, or number of noise complaints.  The fact that a credible theory of the crime includes the belief that officials can get with arbitrary rulings to benefit themselves or their cronies is evidence of that we are on a road to tyranny.  Hayek knew what he was talking about.

What You Should Be Reading

• Leslie Eastman reports on how the Tea Party is much more alive and well than you think, with a great round up.
• Dean reinforces my point about lack of rule of law and gangsterism at the national level in the Obama administration.  Where is that guy that made the crappy YouTube trailer that caused our Ambassador in Benghazi to get killed, anyway?
• The twitter feed from @DaveMaass, who succinctly broke down the key elements of today's scandal and has links to key documents.
• China is halting banking transfers according to Forbes.  With all the developing world's currencies tanking, I can't help but think that there are fundamental problems with the international monetary order that are being covered up.  ZeroHedge refutes the idea that banking transfers are being halted, but opines that there are liquidity problems in China. 

The NSA, the ACA, Filner and the Rule of Law

Bob Filner resigned yesterday under the weight of a sexual harassment scandal.  I say, one cheer for this outcome.  While Filner's sexual harassment conduct violated the law, it is generally not criminal, except for the potential assault charges, and even those would be unlikely to be felonies.  Filner's blatant disregard for the rule of law, including corruption, as chronicled on this blog should have been the more compelling reason for his removal.  From trying to shake down the hoteliers on the tourism district tax to shaking down developers, Filner displayed an arrogance and disregard that should have no place in American politics.  Sadly, these twin defects are plaguing our political system from city hall to the White House and the federal bureaucracy.

The Affordable Care Act is not delivering on its key promises and it is obvious to all but its most partisan defenders.  Dean has documented the numerous ways in which the act has been subverted by the administration itself with barely a nod to legality.  The President believes he can suspend portions of a law that he signed.  There is little outrage nor coverage.  Individuals will be penalized by the IRS soon if they don't buy approved coverage, big businesses, unions, and Congressional aides, not so much.  HHS Secretary Sebelius has described the ACA as "the law of the land," but what do we call a land in which the law is not applied to the ruling class and the favored classes but only to the "masses." Even socialists call that a tyranny.

Meanwhile, the NSA has acknowledged that its agents have violated the surveillance laws, without much consequence for the agency, because of course, the whole thing is secret.  A judge has concluded that the NSA has exceeded its authority and not been forthcoming.

The federal judge authoring the opinion, FISC Judge John Bates, concluded that there is no way to know with certainty how far the government’s intelligence and surveillance capabilities have actually gone. In his 85-page opinion, Bates noted that his court originally approved the NSA's ability to capture a more limited and targeted amount of data.

“In conducting its review and granting those approvals, the Court did not take into account NSA’s acquisition of Internet transactions, which now materially and fundamentally alters the statutory and constitutional analysis,” the judge wrote.

No accountability, spying on Americans and no way of knowing how far it goes.  How does this differ in any way except volume from any other totalitarian regime.

Peggy Noonan has analyzed the issue well, and although she is discussing the NSA in particular, this analysis applies to the lawlessness in government in general.

"All this scares me to death," the man [a former Senator] wrote. "How many times do we have to watch government, with the best of intentions, I am sure (or almost so), do things 'for us'? Now 'security' and 'terrorism' argue for and justify the case for ever more intrusions—all in the name of protecting us. The truly frightening thing is that we are told we have to depend on government to police itself. Not a comforting thought, for we already have far too much evidence of the lack of such self-supervision. These actions, as Nat Hentoff said, will sooner than later curtail free speech. 

"If so, I am fearful that this will ultimately lead a nation of sullen paranoids, ever more dependent upon government, ever more fearful of it. A free society, it will not be."

Leftists in charge of our government can't think of a better goal, it enhances their power to run everyone's lives.  True Liberals should join those of us in the liberty movement in rising up against this tyranny of lawlessness.  I had hoped that Filner's ouster would be seen as a good first step, but the greater point about rule of law appears to be drowned in a sea of sensationalism.

What You Should Be Reading

• Left Coast Rebel makes the point that conservatives should be making common cause with libertarians, not bashing them.  It is a theme I also hope to return to. 
• Assad apparently thinks he can act with impunity regardless of what Obama says.  Maybe he's right.  In order not to appear weak, we will have to respond in some manner.  But the rebels winning will let al-Qaeda get chemical weapons in all likelihood.  There are no good options in Syria.
• Can't feed their people, but somehow they can let crystal meth into a domestic market?  Read this strange report on North Korea.  (H/T M.J. Perry.)

Filner Resigns - BDaddy Endorses Faulconer.

As you are all undoubtedly aware, Bob Filner has resigned as mayor of San Diego.  I took down the Recall Filner petition link as a result.

On to the fun and games of the next election.  Fletcher has already declared.  Will other Democrats run?  Will the Republicans rally behind a candidate.

I am endorsing Kevin Faulconer right now, because getting an early start on this is important.  If it turns out he is not running, I will look at the field again.

OK Doug, You Got This One

I am not going to blog any more about Filner's scandals because Doug Manchester, owner of the U-T, is ensuring that they are exhaustively covered.  He has made it his mission to drive Filner from office, as evidenced by the comprehensive coverage of all the scandals in his paper. That it sells more papers is mere frosting on the cake. Holman Jenkins correctly identified Manchester's economic interest as other than ad revenue in his analysis in the WSJ, specifically noting that the paper makes a great platform to advance Manchester's economic interests, including getting a new stadium built.  While I agree with the result, we shouldn't forget that the business interests of hoteliers and developers don't always coincide with those of the taxpayer.  In my opinion, Filner is living proof that not all change is good, even when things are bad.  Filner has cast a pall over development projects in San Diego, so Manchester is understandably exorcised over the mayor's actions.

Blogger North Pole, writing in sdrostra, gives us fair warning that Filner's exit will come because his continued presence as an outsider is distrusted by those wedded to the status quo.  Some of the status quo includes deals and quid-pro-quos between the unions and the big business interests, in all likelihood.  In the comments section of that article, Pat Flannery calls out Todd Gloria as the ringmaster of the "10th Floor business-union-political Influence Exchange known as the City Council" and opines that this cabal is determined not to let the mayor's office be occupied by an outsider.

These signs point to an eventual Filner ouster. But in a light turnout election, who will carry the standard of taxpayers in general, and not skew city policy to benefit downtown business interests?  In all likelihood, no one.  The only potential candidate that would get my whole-hearted endorsement would be Carl DeMaio, but I don't want him to jump into the mayor's race.  That would look too opportunistic; scraping back House seats from the Democratic party is important to slowing down Obama's tyrannical overreach. I happen to like a little gridlock in Washington and the IRS, Benghazi and EPA overreach all need investigation by a Republican congress.

Right now, I am more worried about the choke-hold the public employee unions have on state and local government. Gloria Romero, former Majority leader in the CA state senate, writes about the power of the unions in today's U-T (H/T @CarlDeMaio).  She details the deleterious effects that accrues to the power of the teachers' and prison guard unions to name two.  If compelled to choose between government friendly to big business or big unions, the risks and costs are weighted against the unions.  But I don't have to like my choices.

We will see how this recall election shapes up, but Republicans would do well to rally behind a candidate that at least makes some effort to put taxpayers first.

Who really calls the shots in Sacramento and City Halls around the state? A Democrat reveals the iron grip labor... http://t.co/Yd49VLxQsu
— Carl DeMaio (@carldemaio) August 11, 2013

A Specter is Haunting San Diego

A spectre is haunting Europe — the spectre of communism.

The Communist Manifesto, 1848.

Consider this tale.  You and your spouse buy an older (circa 1920s) home you wish to remodel as your dream home. You hire a lawyer, you go before the historical review board. You go before the community planning commission and the city planning commission.  This is a lot of work and a lot of money.  Maybe you don't like it, but we are a society with rules of law, so you follow the law.  Citizens, through their city council voted that we would protect historical landmarks and ensure proper land use.  So we expect a predictable outcome based on the rule of law with decisions made with due process.  But the mayor gets some emails and his chief of staff intervenes and sends the case back.  Who knows why?  But the mayor is under investigation for a pay to play scheme.

This is the product of leftism and the mayor of San Diego is undeniably a man of the left.  This is the end result of putting politics over process.  This is the road to serfdom.

The leftist playbook seeks to seize upon all the levers of government for the sole purpose of expanding the power of government and the left.  Getting corporations into line by threatening them with regulation, not enforcing the law when politically inconvenient, getting your pet projects delivered on the backs of developers needing your approval, buying votes by intervening against unpopular but lawful projects are all means to the end of unchecked power.  This is no different than leftism's predecessor of socialism and communism.  The reason that such isms result in tyranny is that they seek to so expand the role of the state that abuse and corruption are too powerful of temptations to resist.  The leftists seeks the power and riches that they can not obtain, because they lack the skills and entrepreneurial spirit to compete in a capitalist society.  They denounce society as evil, when their intent is to appropriate riches for themselves.

The U-T has done a public service by chronicling the multiple interventions by the mayor's office in land use decisions since he was sworn in last December.  Just like the Obama administration, which thinks it must enforce the Affordable Care Act only when convenient to its political interests, the mayor has used land use for his own political convenience.  The left has become more open about their goals and more blatant in the grab for power.  Liberals, as opposed to leftists, should be appalled and fight back if they value democracy.

Here is the 10 News video of the lead story.

Sifting the News

Like many of you, I don't trust the news as reported by the big outlets like CNN, the New York Times or even Fox News.  They all have agendas, but in a free market information tends to eventually get out.  But you can also learn a lot by reading between the lines, and analyzing the self-interest of the players involved in the news.  More importantly, the media, by trumpeting a particular sensational story diverts the public eye from more important issues.  Here are some things I am watching and my take.

Detroit's bankruptcy. This is one of the most important stories in the country right now, because if the unions can claim constitutional protection for their pension benefits, most big cities will become totally dominated by unions and who will then state taxpayers with the tab for outrageous pensions.  Union pensions getting trimmed might impose a small measure of discipline on out of control spending in some cities.

The Snowden Distraction.  After the leaks about NSA spying the attention shifted to Snowden as a person, not his allegations.  But the allegations were not really denied by the big internet firms, like AT&T and Google.  Government intervention required them to word their denials in a way that makes them unbelievable.  I am not sure if I believe Snowden entirely, but I don't believe Big IT.

Filner's Dance with Destiny. (No she's not an ex-employee.)  Daily and more frequently, revelations about the Filner case are served up by the U-T.  But the whole Sunroad play to pay scandal has disappeared from the news, despite an FBI inquiry.  This is not Sunroad's first dust up with allegations of improper influence.  (See a great timeline on the previous difficulties with zoning and influencing then Mayor Sanders at Community Airfields Assn of SD.) I always assume that the U-T is aligned with the big downtown business interests of this city, often hoteliers and developers.  I don't think they are pushing the Filner sexual harassment story because it takes the spotlight off of a developer; but it seems to fit their self-interest.

IRS Scandal.  This is a real scandal that should have legs. My sense is that it doesn't go to the White House, but to key Democratic politicians.  If we knew the whole truth, the Dems would be reeling, which is why the full court press to keep it covered up.  This is how tyranny starts. Darrell Issa could do the Republic a service if he can blow this open.  Bradley Smith analyzes the self interests of the parties involved.

That's a wrap on that topic.  I have instituted a new part of my daily posting, but neglected it of late:

What You Should Be Reading:

• Dean's take on the low information voters who put Filner in office.  Read him, he makes good sense and links back to me.  
• Tax revolt coalition Blogger-in-Chief Dawn reports on the latest federal effort to take over local education everywhere and the coalition of Moms in opposition.  Just more argument for shutting down government schools.

What You Should NOT Be Reading:

• Some rich dude bought the Washington Post.  I heard he likes to read. It's a trophy purchase and I guarantee that he overpaid.
• Anything about George Zimmerman as the media should give the man some peace.

Why Recalling Filner Matters

Some Republicans have privately told me that they are sitting out the effort to recall Mayor Filner, saying it makes little difference to governing San Diego and that the GOP might be better off if Filner drags down Democrats.  I wholeheartedly disagree. Exhibit A is the July 30 ordinance requiring a "prevailing wage" for city contracts for public works and maintenance efforts.

As a taxpayer, I want to get the most out of each dollar that goes out on contract.  Since the "prevailing wage" law increases the cost to the city, how is this in my benefit?  It is not, and no amount of arguing about the "social benefits" of a "prevailing wage" will convince me otherwise.  As long as the unions call the shots, the cost of local government will go up until we can't afford any public services at all, see Detroit.  The left wing web site Media Matters took the U-T editorial board to task for saying the "prevailing wage" will only increase city costs by $13 million not the $26 million claimed.  When even the left acknowledges that costs will increase, you know this is a bad bargain for taxpayers.

Is there any doubt that this bill passed only because Bob Filner is mayor?  Is there any doubt that he will push organized labor's agenda at the expense of the taxpayer as long as he remains in office?  The "prevailing wage" law isn't grounds for recall, but it adds impetus to the effort because the mayor's actions have legitimately opened the door to such a campaign.

Filner WILL Resign - Some Questions for the Next Mayor

There is no doubt that Bob Filner is on his way out as Mayor.  I predicted he might not make it, but this is fast.  Today both the U-T and KPBS reported that prominent Democrats, including Donna Frye, are urging the mayor to resign over sexual harassment allegations.  There is also the little matter of an FBI investigation into a pay-to-play scandal involving Sunroad Centrum's project in Kearney Mesa.

Fading away? Probably not, but it will be ugly.

Richard Rider provides a nice summary on Twitter:

Filner MUST resign. Sexual harassment charges emerging. IMHO, it's only a matter of WHEN he resigns. He may try to cut deal re: fed charges.
— Richard Rider (@SD_TaxFighters) July 10, 2013

Meanwhile, let's start thinking about the issues that we want the new mayor to address. My debate questions follow:

1. Will the candidate wholeheartedly support the pension reforms of Proposition B, including working with the City Attorney to vigorously defend the measure in court?  Explain your next steps to implement these reforms in order to save taxpayer dollars.
2.  Will you push managed competition to reduce the cost of city services?  What would be the next of services that should be put in play?
3. Name at least one city program that consumes over 1% of the city budget that you would eliminate.
4. What will you do to normalize the legal status of marijuana dispensaries.

What other debate topics do we have?

With regards to the horse race aspect of the race, I see Kevin Faulconer and Nathan Fletcher as early front runners. If Faulconer wins, does that cause a daisy chain effect, with Lorie Zapf vacating her current District 6 seat to run in her home District 2?  If she won, who are the front runners in District 2?  (Like Zapf, I was redistricted from CD-6 to CD-2 when the number of council seats expanded.)  Local politicos are certainly plotting their next moves.

What You Should Be Reading

• Dean, at BeerswithDemo, provides a cautionary tale for advocates of marijuana legalization based on Colorado's experience. Apropos to our own city's struggles with this issue.
• Daniel Henninger declares July 3, 2013 the day big government died.  When leftist government can't even deliver on its core competency of issuing regulations, you know that big government has "hit the wall." H/T KT Cat.

Medical Marijuana and Filner

I should have known.  First, let me say that I am in favor of all forms of legalizing marijuana, so of course, I am not opposed to medical marijuana.  I followed the link on this tweet from Craig Gustafson to read about Bob Filner's medical marijuana proposal:

Story on @bobfilnermayor 's med pot ordinance now with docs -- executive summary and actual ordinance language. bit.ly/ZagbXb
— Craig Gustafson (@gustafsoncraig) March 19, 2013

The linked U-T story opens with this paragraph:

Mayor Bob Filner is proposing an ordinance to allow medical marijuana dispensaries to operate in commercial and industrial areas for a $5,000 annual permit fee and a 2 percent city tax on sales.

It seems that Mayor Filner can't help himself but grab for more tax dollars even when doing something I agree with (see previous post on hotel tax).  However, given the fact that there is serious contention with the federal government over the issue, taxing the product provides an incentive for the city to help protect the dispensaries from federal action.  I don't know to what extent the city could help the dispensaries if the feds took action, but the accumulation of resistance to federal enforcement of marijuana laws, like is happening in Colorado and Washington, will eventually roll back this modern form of prohibition.

Will Filner Finish His Term?

Bob Filner appears a little unhinged, and frankly unprofessional in this video from local news station NBC 7.  He hijacks a news conference by City Attorney Jan Goldsmith to make accusations of unprofessional conduct.  His view of the role of the City Attorney appears entirely unbalanced.  The City Attorney can't be fired by the mayor, because he is elected directly by the public.  Filner's tactics are those of a bully or a Congressman, not used to the necessity of working with other members of the team.  It seems irrational for the mayor to waste political capital on a personal and public fight with another official with whom he must work in the future.  His ego is writing a check he may lack the political capital to afford.

It is clear that Filner is dealing from a weak hand; so he throws a tantrum.  But his tantrum is exactly the response of a someone who feels powerless; this makes him look weak.  His strategy on the hotel tax is also incoherent.  He claims that it is illegal, but then makes a demand for a bigger cut before he will sign off on a contract to use the proceeds to fund a tourism campaign.  If the tax is illegal, then the city is not going to get its cut for public safety.  And if the tax is legal, then using the money for public safety will make it illegal.  I don't see Filner's play in this, unless he is just grandstanding.  Ultimately, the public judges the mayor on results.  Starting vendettas is not typically the way to achieve positive results.

Maybe he just has anger management issues.  I'm thinking its only 50/50 that he finishes out his term.

Here is the video, click here if the embed doesn't work.

Filner Should Speak Up

San Diego Mayor, Bob Filner, has been keeping silent about his views on the 2% hotel tax.  I previously argued that I thought the tax violated Proposition 26.  City Attorney Jan Goldsmith pointed out that the city was taking risk in the comments section on sdrostra.  City Attorney Goldsmith cited his office's legal opinion which finished with this conclusion:

Prop 26 defines every government imposition of a duty to pay funds to government as a tax unless one of seven enumerated exceptions applies.  It is not clear whether the City’s traditional businessbased assessments can meet one of those exceptions. . . .

However, it is Mayor Filner's failure to respond that is bothering me now.  The U-T reported that he has made no public statement on his failure to sign an agreement to release the tourism district's funds.

Filner has declined to respond to repeated requests for an interview. He also failed to appear Wednesday night for a scheduled appearance at the San Diego County Hotel-Motel Association's annual awards presentation and was unable to attend Thursday morning's annual tourism meeting where he was to be a speaker.

Hardly a display of leadership.  There may have been good reasons for his inability or failure to attend these events, but because they create doubt in the public mind, he owes the public a statement on the issue.  I wish he would just come out and say that he is not going to sign a contract because the tax is unconstitutional.  His prior statements that he wanted to use those tax dollars for "public safety" create doubt as to his real intentions.  On other occasions, the mayor isn't shy about sharing his opinion, why now?

A Fine Mess - The Hotel Tax

I find myself partially agreeing with Mayor Filner on the subject of San Diego's hotel tax.  He has stalled on signing the contract that would allow the hoteliers to start using the proceeds to promote tourism and the hotels of San Diego.  In an earlier post, I noted that he wanted to use the revenue for "public safety," but now he is just saying that he had said the tax is illegal.  If the tax is illegal, it can't be used for any activity, including public safety.  Meanwhile, the UT article linked above notes that there are lawsuits proceeding against the hotel tax, claiming it violates Proposition 26, passed 2010, which requires a supermajority vote of the people to raise taxes.  Here is what the state constitution says about taxes and votes, from Article XIII C, California Constitution:

Text of Section 1:
Definitions. As used in this article:
(a) "General tax" means any tax imposed for general governmental purposes.
(b) "Local government" means any county, city, city and county, including a charter city or county, any special district, or any other local or regional governmental entity.
(c) "Special district" means an agency of the State, formed pursuant to general law or a special act, for the local performance of governmental or proprietary functions with limited geographic boundaries including, but not limited to, school districts and redevelopment agencies.
(d) "Special tax" means any tax imposed for specific purposes, including a tax imposed for specific purposes, which is placed into a general fund.
(e) As used in this article, “tax” means any levy, charge, or exaction of any kind imposed by a local government, except the following:
(1) A charge imposed for a specific benefit conferred or privilege granted directly to the payor that is not provided to those not charged, and which does not exceed the reasonable costs to the local government of conferring the benefit or granting the privilege.
(2) A charge imposed for a specific government service or product provided directly to the payor that is not provided to those not charged, and which does not exceed the reasonable costs to the local government of providing the service or product.
(3) A charge imposed for the reasonable regulatory costs to a local government for issuing licenses and permits, performing investigations, inspections, and audits, enforcing agricultural marketing orders, and the administrative enforcement and adjudication thereof.
(4) A charge imposed for entrance to or use of local government property, or the purchase, rental, or lease of local government property.
(5) A fine, penalty, or other monetary charge imposed by the judicial branch of government or a local government, as a result of a violation of law.
(6) A charge imposed as a condition of property development.
(7) Assessments and property-related fees imposed in accordance with the provisions of Article XIII D.
The local government bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that a levy, charge, or other exaction is not a tax, that the amount is no more than necessary to cover the reasonable costs of the governmental activity, and that the manner in which those costs are allocated to a payor bear a fair or reasonable relationship to the payor’s burdens on, or benefits received from, the governmental activity.


Text of Section 2:
Local Government Tax Limitation. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Constitution:
. . .
(d) No local government may impose, extend, or increase any special tax unless and until that tax is submitted to the electorate and approved by a two-thirds vote. A special tax shall not be deemed to have been increased if it is imposed at a rate not higher than the maximum rate so approved.

Sorry for the extended legalese, but I am hard pressed to see how this tax, paid by hotel guests, who do not receive a direct benefit from the tax, can be passed by the hotels themselves.  The city clerk tabulated the votes for the tax, so it appears to have the force of law of the city government behind it.

The hotels could solve this problem themselves, by putting together a local association and agreeing to pay into a fund to promote tourism.  There would be a free rider problem for hotels that wanted the benefits, but didn't pay in.  Perhaps the Tourism Marketing District could omit links and mention of those hotels names in their promotional materials and web sites.  Using the police power of government to enforce the hotels association dues is out of constitutional bounds.

Meanwhile, what happens to the money piling up if the tax is found to have been unconstitutional?  It would be a nightmare to refund the customers, but if I were a judge in the case, that's what I would require.  That would also be a mess to clean up, but so would any other plan that would attempt to deal with the fees collected.  The sooner the courts resolve, the better.

Filner's Start in Office

. . . is not that great.  I was happy he is stopping medical marijuana outlet harassment by the city, but is that really a burning issue?  Beyond that Filner's start in office has not made me optimistic.

1. He cancelled new managed competition actions, claiming that more study is needed and that service levels have suffered.  The Miramar landfill competition and street sweeping services were won by city workers, but at lower cost to the city; why is Filner complaining?  There is no evidence of correlation between over paying for a service and better levels of service. Kudos to Kevin Faulconer for seeking to push ahead anyway.
2. He "plans to reorganize land use and redevelopment functions under a new Department of Healthy, Safe and Livability Neighborhoods."  Stand by for any new construction to become more difficult.  Just what a struggling economy needs. 
3. He has called for scaling back a state water project that will bring badly needed water to Southern California.  My water bill is very high already, despite cutting back, why doesn't the mayor care about that?
4. I haven't seen any proposals on how to keep spending under control or what his plan is for dealing with a projected deficit.

I am skeptical of his promise in his state of the city address to freeze pensionable pay for city workers.  It would be great if he did, but I am willing to bet that doesn't happen.  Any takers?

On a side note, his comments that the Chargers weren't leaving were welcome, but why is that the headline in the U-T?  Didn't the mayor talk about more important items.  

Progressives Look to Filner to Whack at San Diego's Economy

Kelly Davis of CityBeat has performed a public service in detailing some areas where Bob Filner's philosophy will have a negative impact on the city's economy.  Of course, Davis doesn't take that view, but a review of potential "progressive" action items doesn't bode well for the local economy.

• Development. Progressives complain about the city reorganization that saved some money and by moving the planning department to a division in the development department.  The building industry is supposedly in favor of the move, because of the potential to steam line the permitting process.  However, the move seems to draw the ire of progressives for lack of "transparency."  But faster permitting would seem to promote economic growth, so what is the real complaint here?
• Transportation. Progressives are hoping that Filner will pour even more money down the rat hole of the public transit system.  Our Attorney General, Kamala Harris, supposedly doesn't like the fact that SANDAG's transport plan has too much emphasis on freeway widening.  A shift in emphasis and funding away from freeways to public transport will of course just cause more traffic jams.
• Housing. The liberal belief is that the way to increase affordable housing is to subsidize the production of low income housing.  Despite the city's budget woes related specifically to the changes Jerry Brown gutted the redevelopment agencies, the left is hoping Filner will divert money to low income housing.  Steven Greenhut details the way in which government run housing projects decrease the stock of housing available to the poor in Reason.  The best way to increase affordable housing is to increase the total amount of housing being built.  The increased stock acts as increased supply, and the laws of supply and demand drive down the overall cost of housing.
• Electrical Power Production.  Progressives were upset with Sanders' support for two power plant projects and look to Filner to take their side.  How the city is supposed to get less dependent on importing power over "single point of failure links" is not spelled out.  Having lived through the disaster September 2011, I am acutely aware of the risks we face.  The FERC study on that disaster points out that the system is subject relatively too few nodes for transmission of electricity, as I have reviewed.  If this stand is in the name of environmental protection, then how much air pollution occurs when thousands of people fire up their portable gasoline generators, break out charcoal bbqs, and toss out food when we lose power?
• Tourism.  Look for the hotel tax increase that funds tourism outreach (under the Tourism Management District) to come under assault.  Filner advocated shifting the money to "public safety" in an October debate, questioning the legality of the tax.  I question the legality as well and would propose repeal.  However, Filner reveals his instincts are those of a big government thug, when rather than rescind a tax the hoteliers imposed on themselves, he wants to seize the cash for the city.  Either the tax is illegal and gets repealed or it should stand and be used for tourism.

Kelly's article opened with a discussion of Filner proposing providing subsidies for families of students who couldn't afford the $36 per month bus pass.  It makes a nice sound bite, but I really question how many students fall in that category.  Where is the study?  Where is the evidence?  How many employees will be hired or diverted from other work to run a small bureaucracy to determine which students are truly needy enough to get free passes?  If we base the decision on income, who will audit compliance with federal privacy laws when these people provide their income tax returns as proof of need?  If we don't require proof, how are the subsidies not going to drain the transit system coffers as students line up to collect the free passes?  Will my son, who lives at home, but is unemployed and goes to a community college get a pass?  If so, why? we are relatively well off.  If not, why not? Are we discriminating based on the basis of family origin?  Nobody asks these questions when politicians just announce some fabulous free crap.  Maybe if we always did, they would be embarrassed into working on real issues, like how are we going to implement a budget that works.

A Filner administration may give me ample material for my blog, but that is cold comfort when his policies won't be helping an economy that badly needs it.

State and Local Election Results

I was surprised and disappointed by state and local election results.  Filner's victory is really bad news for the city.  I boldly predict he will undermine the implementation of Proposition B.  Most likely, he will block the city's defense of the legal assault on the initiative by the unions.  His victory was not a landslide, but 3% is still substantial.   He doesn't care that the city will be bankrupt in a decade, he'll be probably be addled or six feet under by then.  We will see how well the real fiscal constraints he inherits inhibit his ability to reward his union supporters.  With Filner winning, it seemed inevitable that Bilbray would lose, but its still very close.  We'll see if a principled conservative can defeat Peters in 2014.  Who is ready for that challenge?

Proposition 30's victory also surprised me.  It's victory defied the trend of tax increases not passing when more than one is on the ballot.  It passed well beyond what polling would have indicated.  Make no mistake, these tax increases will not raise the revenue promised, will not be temporary and will hurt the poor more than the rich because of the sales tax hike.  Hard to imagine that it won with 54% of the vote, but there you go.  How soon will the state hit the fiscal wall?

Most of my proposition recommendations went down to defeat.  A couple of exceptions were the revision of the three strikes law and genetically engineered food labeling.

Results from the state office.  Changed the color of the props to indicate how I did, red, I lost and green my position won:

Proposition Title			Yes Votes	%	No Votes	%
Yes	30	Temporary Taxes to Fund Education	4,967,039	53.9%	4,251,558	46.1%
No	31	State Budget, State and Local Government	3,376,286	39.2%	5,229,659	60.8%
No	32	Political Contributions by Payroll Deduction	3,983,603	43.9%	5,094,492	56.1%
No	33	Auto Insurance Prices Based on Driver History	4,056,302	45.4%	4,879,954	54.6%
No	34	Death Penalty	4,276,463	47.2%	4,787,677	52.8%
Yes	35	Human Trafficking	7,324,721	81.1%	1,701,734	18.9%
Yes	36	Three Strikes Law	6,193,431	68.6%	2,832,602	31.4%
No	37	Genetically Engineered Foods Labeling	4,285,787	46.9%	4,845,291	53.1%
No	38	Tax for Education. Early Childhood Programs	2,493,398	27.7%	6,509,127	72.3%
Yes	39	Business Tax for Energy Funding	5,305,400	60.0%	3,530,537	40.0%
Yes	40	Redistricting State Senate	6,081,071	71.4%	2,431,524	28.6%

Eventually this state will come to its senses, or run out of money.