San Diego Planning Follies

From the U-T:

The City Council voted 6-3 on Monday to reject plans to build three homes on the Jessop estate in Point Loma, adding to the single one built in 1926.
. . .
"When you have properties this big, you shouldn't be putting the houses 12 feet apart," said Council President Sherri Lightner, adding that the design would make firefighting difficult. "I have grave concerns about public safety."
Councilwoman Lorie Zapf, whose district includes Point Loma, said she could support adding­ development to the site, but not this particular proposal for La Crescentia Drive because of the locations of the new homes.
Monday's council vote was actually in favor of a res­ident's appeal of the Planning Commission’s approval of the proposed subdivision last June.
. . .
The owner of the property, Carolyn Kutzke, has been trying for several years to develop it.

The OBRag has more background on the story.  Apparently, there were 700 signatures on a petition to overturn the planning commission vote.  I think that Carolyn Kutzke should sue under the takings clause of the U.S. Constitution if she is not given a way ahead to develop her 1.5 acre property.

I hope that the city council is as fearful of resident's dismay when they vote on jamming dense development into the Morena district.  I am sure there will be far more than 700 people willing to sign a petition.  In the meantime, the council approved the path ahead to change the Bay Park community plan bypassing an update of the entire community plan.  This is a process foul that didn't go unnoticed by RaiseTheBalloon:

While we appreciate that the city threw out the original timeline to complete the Morena Blvd Area Specific Plan and replaced it with a more reasonable one, Raise the Balloon and residents of our community have made a formal protestation of the City’s attempt to change/amend our community plan through the Morena Blvd Station Area Specific Plan instead of updating our ENTIRE plan through the process of a comprehensive community plan update (CPU).

Meanwhile, all that money that the city collects from developers to make your neighborhood better?  It's not getting spent.  Apparently $78 million isn't enough cash to start a real project.  From the U-T watchdog:

Developers have paid more than $157 million in impact fees since San Diego approved the charges on new construction in the 1980s, and despite a litany of needs the city has spent only half the money, budget records show.
The money was collected from builders in some of San Diego’s oldest neighborhoods, with the idea that they should contribute to community needs such as parks and fire stations. Much of the money has remained in the bank for years while city planners save up for projects or figure out how it should be spent.
In the downtown district alone, the city has assembled $25 million. The city has not completed an impact fee-funded project in that area in more than 10 years, although officials have spent more than $400,000 of the funds on administration.
Citywide, $78 million of the money collected so far has not been spent, as of June 2014, the most recent accounting available.

Creative way to waste tax dollars? Don't spend it.

Sarah Boot - Progressive?

Oh yeah, and by progressive, that means a person of the left as opposed to a mere SWPL-y person of pallor.

Sarah Boot is running against quasi-incumbent Lorie Zapf for San Diego City Council in District 2.  For full disclosure, recent redistricting moved my home from District 6 to District 2, like Zapf. I am very interested in this race. San Diego City Beat has this to say about Boot:

In 2010, she was selected as a fellow for the San Diego chapter of the New Leaders Council, which aims to train “progressive political entrepreneurs” for leadership roles, elected office among them. She’s also a founding member of Run Women Run, a local organization focused on getting politically progressive women in office. [emphasis mine.]

On her campaign web site, Boot promises to work for neighborhoods and public safety.  Both Mayor Faulconer, the former Council-member from the district, and Council-member Zapf made this a priority in their campaigns as well.  You have to go to her issues page to find the evidence of left-leaning tendencies.  Even what you find there is pretty mild.

I will work to provide all San Diegans with good paying jobs in industries of the future not dead end jobs of the past.  These are jobs in “green” industries such as alternative energy like solar and wind and retrofitting our public buildings and “blue” industries that take advantage of our port and ocean front maritime trades.  Whether its promoting “green” or “blue” technologies or championing our local biotech businesses, San Diego needs a city government that is forward thinking and uses our economic development dollars wisely.

But there is not a word about the key issues which have divided the city council of late, the minimum wage debate, the zoning in Bario Logan, pension reform, the hotel tax, linkage fees nor managed competition.  So a little research is in order.  By the way, green jobs are a myth.  I notice that the left has always had a tendency to hide their positions, but I digress.

On the issue of the linkage fee, dumbest tax ever, Boot made her support known in the OB town council debate.  Her stance on the linkage fee is disqualifying, in my opinion.  I can't find reference to Boot's stance on managed competition, although Zapf vigorously supported the concept in the PB and Clairemont forums.  On the issue of the minimum wage, Boot makes her progressive bona fides clear by supporting some sort of increase in an interview with Frank Gormlie in the OBRag. She also discusses the importance of climate disruption change (maybe she hadn't gotten the memo) and other progressive shibboleths.  In the same interview she exhibits hostility towards outsourcing, although not the same as managed competition, might certainly be an indicator.

If Sarah Boot is elected to the city council, we can expect major intrusions by city government and a very union friendly 6-3 Democrat majority on the council.  It means no to any more pension reform, managed competition or any other efforts to keep city costs under control.  Further, plastic bag bans, changes to how we get our electricity, raising minimum wages so my son can lose his job and general interference in our lives will be on its way.  I think Lorie Zapf has been great on the City Council, but even if she had been mediocre, I would still be endorsing her over Sarah Boot.

What You Should Be Reading

• Giving us hope for this generations of collegiate students, UNC Sophomore Timothy Bame writes about the myth of clean energy.  45% of the electricity generated in the United States is through the use of coal. It is also by far the cheapest form of electricity and the easiest to obtain, yet it remains in plentiful supply. (H/T College Insurrection).  I would add that the shift to natural gas has reduced carbon emissions by more than any "green" technology ever will.
• Meanwhile, despite repeated claims that we need all that solar and wind because of peak oil, America is on a path to achieve its highest rates of petroleum production, evah!  
• State Rep Joseph Gibbons of FL points out that California's net-metering policies are subsidizing solar power providers because they avoid paying for the electrical that they depend upon.  As someone who has recently received some quotes for solar, I worry that a change to a rationale policy for connecting to the grid will change my savings calculations.

My Son May Lose His Job

. . . If the city of San Diego passes a minimum wage hike.  The San Diego City Council has taken the first step to put a separate minimum wage hike on the ballot.  This is a terrible idea beyond the usual arguments against a minimum wage increase.  But, first the issue with a hike at all.  The argument gets made that there is some right to be paid a certain amount of money just because one work's a full time job.  It doesn't matter if the worker's skills can command that amount compensation.  The practical effect of increasing the minimum wage is to pick some winners and some losers.  Some employers have said that they would cut staff.  My son makes minimum wage; I don't want him to lose his job if his employer makes that choice to keep down labor costs.  From the WSJ:

Just over half of U.S. businesses that pay the minimum wage would hire fewer workers if the federal standard is raised to $10.10 per hour, according to a survey by a large staffing firm to be released Wednesday. But the same poll found a majority of those companies would not cut their current workforce.
About two-thirds of employers paying the minimum wage said they would raise prices for goods or services in response to an increase, the survey by Express Employment Professionals found. About 54% of minimum-wage employers would reduce hiring if the federally mandated rate increased by $2.85 per hour. A smaller share—38% — said they would lay off employees if the wage increase favored by President Barack Obama becomes law.

Expressed graphically from the same article, here are the percent of companies responding to the yes/no question: If the minimum wage were to increase to $10.10 per hour, would your company . . .

The argument for the minimum wage hike is couched in terms of the earning power of a single individual making that wage providing for a family.  If that is the argument, then why isn't the minimum wage different for teenage students living at home.  Why isn't it different for a bunch of single men or women sharing a small apartment?  What if you have a chronic illness? Shouldn't you get paid more?

In fact none of those circumstances matter, because they ignore the justice for the employer, who needs to get productive labor from the work force to stay in business.  It's also unfair to consumers who will have to pay more.  It's unfair to those workers who will lose jobs.  It's unfair to the unemployed who might not get a chance to get a job.  If you are going to argue fairness why isn't fairness for those groups mentioned?

Finally, increasing the minimum wage just in the city limits is ludicrous.  Our city has a hard enough time competing because we live in California, but to lose jobs to Poway and El Cajon is egregiously stupid.  Do Democrats want their party to be synonymous with unemployment?  It would seem so.

What You Should Be Reading

• KT Cat and Dean both discuss the disgusting burning of human fetal remains in England.
• Waves of banker suicides around the world?  Leading indicator that is time to cash out capital gains from this bull market? H/T WC Varones.
• For a dying party, the GOP seems curiously successful.
• James Poulos examines the role of Asian-American Democratic legislators in killing affirmative action legislation for California public universities in Cal Watchdog.  From the comments: Democrats cannot take Asians votes for granted as they do the Black voter, . . .

San Diego City Council Votes for Increased Ambulance Fees for Ethically Challenged Company

H/T @LorieZapfD6. From the U-T:

The City Council voted 5-3 Monday to have private partner Rural/Metro Corp. buy out the city’s share in San Diego Medical Services for $5.5 million but allow it to remain the city’s ambulance operator for the next two years. During that period, city officials would launch a competitive bidding process to possibly find a new provider and strike a better deal for taxpayers.

We have Republicans on the losing end of a 5-3 vote that seems to harm the poor and uninsured. How do Democrats explain themselves? Here are the objections one can glean from the article.

• Both a whistle blower, former executive Robert Heffner, and the City Auditor, Eduardo Luna have accused Rural/Metro of cheating the city of millions of dollars.
• Average costs for ambulance service will increase well above state wide averages.

“We’re talking about a significant increase. ... It falls on the backs of people who don’t have insurance and then those who do have insurance, guess what, their rates are going to go up,” Zapf said. “I don’t understand why we’re looking at such a huge increase.”

Lorie Zapf, Kevin Faulconer, and Carl DeMaio all voted against the buy out.

Help For Small Businesses in San Diego?

Lorie Zapf and Tony Young have released a Small Business Assistance Package designed to help small businesses cut through the red tape of city government and get the local economy growing. The effort is in part the result of an outreach effort by Zapf to small businesses. Some key provisions.

1. Code Compliance Amnesty
2. Small Business Liaison / Code Compliance Representative
3. Reinstitute Regulatory Relief Days
4. Business Improvement District Enhancement/Small Business Policy Innovation Zones
5. Implement Sunset Clauses in Business Regulations

I am not a business owner, but the details sound good. Helping business expand is just what we need. Driving around this district, I see too many vacant storefronts and lots. Had some questions as well.

1. Why can't small businesses always be granted time to correct code violations? Why just an amnesty period?

2. The Innovation Zone proposal states in part: ". . .expediting permits within the zone, lifting sign ordinance restrictions within the zone and creating specific programmatic EIRs (or some variation) for the zone." It is a sad state of affairs that permit expediting is needed at all. Since tax revenue accrues to growing businesses, one would think that hiring more staff to expedite permits would pay for itself through increased tax revenue. Is there a flaw in my thinking?

3. Sunset clauses are one of the best ways to prevent regulatory creep, because it keeps the regulators on the defensive defending the need to regulate. Why couldn't this be a California amendment?

This is good work from our council member, good to see her fighting the good fight.

Thought I had the scoop on this item, but it looks like the U-T beat me to the punch. News 8 as well.

Cross-posted to sdrostra.

In Other Good News for San Diegans

In addition to the vote on Walmart, Lorie Zapf tweets that the City Council also voted to move forward on managed competition. Channel 10 News reports:

The San Diego City Council Tuesday approved a plan to bid out the functions of its Fleet Services Department, which maintains more than 4,000 city-owned vehicles, including police cars and fire truckss.
. . .
The city is also putting out its printing division for bid. The mayor said last month that street sweeping, road repair and some functions of the Public Utilities Department will come next.

As I have said, even if the city division wins the bid, they can only do so by instituting savings. Either way, the taxpayers win.

Walmart Ordinance Repealed

The San Diego City Council, as predicted, repealed the big box economic analysis ordinance this afternoon, on a 7-1 vote. The VOSD has an editorial inveighing against the so called subversion of democracy this represents, because somehow Walmart had the temerity to pay for signature gatherers. News flash, they would have got the signatures with out without paid gatherers. I would have volunteered myself. Leftists trying to shut down Walmart underestimate the depth of loyalty of their shoppers.

Marti Emerald (District 7) was on the losing end of the vote and is reportedly angry:

Emerald accused Walmart of lobbing a “constant volley of attacks” on the council’s character and unfairly depicting the supercenter debate as a battle between labor unions and businesses. For example, she said the retailer urged elderly people to call her office to complain that the councilwoman was opposed to them having access to fresh food.

It was a battle between labor unions and business. The patina of "concerned small business owners" was never convincing and the speakers at council hearings did not claim to represent small business:

Numerous times, opponents identified themselves as "worker advocates" and stated, "I didn't vote for Wal-Mart to set policy in this city. I voted for you to do that. I can't fight Wal-Mart alone."

This doesn't mean that new Walmarts will be opening in my neighborhood, but it is a step in the right direction.

National City Schools - Central Falls Deja Vu?

Item 1. I wrote yesterday, but posted this morning, on the schools and municipal situation in Central Falls, RI. Right on cue, this morning's headlines detail some issues locally that mirror the issues back east. It appears that the National City schools are bracing for a strike, as teachers reject budget cutting measures like six furlough days per year. From this morning's U-T:

Faced with a $3 million deficit, the National School District said it was forced to take drastic measures by imposing six furlough days and raising class size caps this year to balance its budget — without the union’s consent. But labor leaders say the district is hording millions of dollars in its reserve account, exploiting the bad economy and bullying teachers to drive down wages and benefits.

Another case of defiant teachers clinging to their privileges and not recognizing the new political realities? Maybe. But here is what I found curious in the article. Management had a chance to settle on terms close to their desires:

When an independent fact-finding mediator issued a report that included a proposed settlement on July 19, the union’s representative signed off on the proposal that — among other things — called for five furloughs, representing a 2.7 percent pay cut.

A lawyer representing the district signed the same document, but said the district would not agree to all of the recommendations. The school board met in closed session the next day and rejected the proposal, in part because it called for a two-year contract when the district wanted a three-year agreement.

Why is the school board so adamant about getting all of their demands met? Can't answer that, but the fact that the teacher's union reps signed off so quickly makes me wonder about what is really going on. It may be that management is overplaying their admittedly strong hand. What is clear is that the district has serious budget difficulties, to the tune of $3 million dollars in the current school year budget. At least some of the pain to be endured must come from the teachers, but it remains an open question as to whether the school board erred in not taking the deal offered by mediation. Either way, fiscal realities like this are going to start impacting districts across the nation, causing reductions in pay for government employees such as teachers.

Item 2. Mayor Sanders not yet released plan to convert new city employees to a 401(k) style retirement plan is already drawing criticism. Public employee pensions are at the heart of the Central Falls post as well. One criticism is that by keeping new workers out of the old plan, there won't be fresh cash to keep the old system afloat. Said criticism is an implicit acknowledgement that the current system amounts to a Ponzi scheme. If the current system were properly accounted and funded, this change wouldn't matter. The other criticism comes from Michael Zucchet, union leader and former council member, saying that a properly funded 401(k) that has to include a decision on whether to account for placing the new workers in the social security system (current workers are exempt), would not save appreciable amounts of money. Maybe so, but that is totally beside the point. First, such a system insulates the city from the risks of investment fluctuation. Second, the workers themselves are better off because it forces the city to fully fund its contributions in the year earned, preventing a later reneging on promises. That Michael Zucchet would be opposed only shows that he has an agenda different from actually helping city employees.

Walmart San Diego Update

In a sign that the repeal of the big box supercenter economic analysis stupidity is inevitable, Walmart announced plans to build a dozen stores in San Diego, strongly hinting that they will build in under-served District 4, represented by Council President Tony Young. This is great news for the city, bringing jobs and better shopping to our town.

While repeal of the law doesn't guarantee that Walmart will start building, if it stayed on the books, it would guarantee that we wouldn't be getting any new Walmarts. The city planning process could still gum up the works, but this is great news.

As the left liked to say in 2008, elections have consequences. I don't think we would be having this discussion if Lorie Zapf hadn't beat Howard Wayne in swing district 6, here in San Diego. Also, it's nice to see that Tony Young is seeing how the interests of unions diverge from the interests of his relatively poorer constituents. Maybe this is another trend that work in the Tea Party movement's favor. Big government policies have always hurt the poor, because they generally lack the resources to have the same impact as the rich and middle class. Getting them on board for some issues can only strengthen our coalition.

San Diego City Hall - Reading the Tea Leaves

Two articles in today's U-T point to the growing realization by the City Council that the issues of fiscal responsibility raised by the Tea Party are the new reality.

Item 1. The council appears poised to rescind the big box economic analysis law in the face of Walmart's successful petition drive. Key swing vote, Tony Young, council President is quoted as saying:

“With the city facing significant unemployment challenges and historic budget deficits, it is difficult to see the sense of spending over $2.5 million for a special election,” he said in a statement. Young said the money could be better spent elsewhere as the city faces a $53 million budget deficit.

The key issue is the cost of the election. Nice to see the council member thinking about cost. The U-T reports that DeMaio, Zapf, Faulconer and Lightner are solid votes to repeal, so this is looking good for a repeal. To give credit where it is due, Richard Rider has been predicting this outcome.

Item 2. City Trims Its Pension Shortfall Craig Gustafson is also reporting that the City Council has decided against paying $100 million in illegally obtained benefits to current and former city employees. The background:

The benefit at issue is called the “purchase of service credit” program, enacted in 1997 under then-Mayor Susan Golding. It’s still in effect, although not for new hires.

Employees can buy as many as five years of service that they didn’t work. For example, a 15-year worker could retire with 20 years of credit. The move increases future pension payments and, in some cases, allows workers to retire earlier.

The pension system wasn’t charging workers enough for the credits between 1997 and 2003 to cover its costs.

The San Diego City Employees’ Retirement System board voted on Aug. 15, 2003, to increase the rates and delayed implementation for more than two months. Word spread quickly and nearly as many people bought credits in that brief window as in the previous six years combined.

However, the state constitution forbids gifts to employees which is what the award of the pension credit without adequate pay in amounts to. Good to see the city council shaving $8.8 million off its annual bill. By the way, how is this different from the case of Judie Italiano getting $700,000 in unearned pension benefits? Also, what is wrong with the pension board? They had asked the council last November to approve the illegal pensions. Can't we fire these jokers?

But over all, I pretty happy. The way I see it, that's a nice deficit reduction of $11.3 million. Plus, I might get to shop at a Walmart SuperCenter in my home town some day. The one I visited in North Charleston was pretty sweet.

Image of Tony Young at top right courtesy of San Diego CityBeat.

Cross-posted to sdrostra.com.

Walmart San Diego - Labor's Flawed Logic

Lorena Gonzales makes some absurd arguments in today's U-T editorial section on the law to block WalMart from setting up "big boxes" that sell groceries without a special economic impact analysis that no other business is subject to. Here is the core of her argument, Superstores have unknown and potentially economic impact, so they should be required to submit to a special analysis before being approved. News flash, all new businesses have an unknown economic impact. If they didn't then the central planning of the former Soviet Union would have made it the richest nation on the planet. Further, even if an analysis is performed, it is unlikely to predict the true effects of any new business. After scaremongering and passing along numerous lies regarding Walmart, she accuses the business of "bullying" the City Council with its petition drive. Bullying? Really? Exercising constitutional rights when being subjugated by local government is bullying? Remember this, which also applies to local government:

Congress shall make no law respecting . . . the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

There is a rebuttal by W. Erik Bruvold, Big-box ordinance unfairly targets one retailer, on the opposite side of the paper. While good, it doesn't really capture my outrage. So here are my rebuttal points:

1. There is already a planning process. Use it. Stop targeting a business that competes with union shop grocers.
   
2. New business is disruptive, so what? Henry Ford didn't submit an impact analysis on the carriage industry.
   
3. Lot's of businesses thrive near Walmarts.
4. Walmart provides wages and benefits that are usually better than the small businesses they supposedly supplant. Like it or not, and I don't, California's minimum wage laws guarantee this.
5. People want to pay less for groceries. Poor people need to pay less for groceries. Why don't you care about the poor?
   
6. Why are labor unions leading the charge against Walmart if the negative impact is allegedly against small businesses, who usually lack union shops, by the way.
   
7. An economic analysis is a ban. Look at the experience in Los Angeles. Quit obfuscating.
8. Labor is going to get thumped again if this goes to a vote, leaving them with less money to make my life more miserable.

I look forward to seeing how the City Council handles this issue.

Cross posted to sdrostra.com

Walmart San Diego Update

As I posted earlier, the San Diego City Council voted to require extra hurdles before Super Walmarts that sell groceries can set up shop in San Diego. The hurdles all but guarantee that lower priced groceries won't be coming to a neighborhood near you if you live in the city limits of "Enron by the Bay."

Richard Rider likes Walmart's chances and is predicting a smack down for the City Council. He says it's a foregone conclusion that Walmart will gather the necessary signatures to put a repeal measure on the ballot. He is also predicting that at least one Democrat will flip and the measure will be repealed. If you haven't done so yet, get out to Walmart and sign the petition. I love nothing more than seeing this City Council get slapped down when they run roughshod over the desires of the people.