The Vintage & Handmade Market
Correction
The first letter on this page, “No on Prop. D,” was printed in last week’s issue but credited to Chuck Bahde, who did not write it. We’re publishing it again here, with the right writer credited. We apologize to both Chuck Bahde and Ronald Harris.
No on Prop. D
I disagree with CityBeat’s support of Proposition D. While I agree that the city manager form of government had its share of problems in the past, Mayor Jerry Sanders recently swayed my opinion to vote against the strong-mayor option.
I witnessed the mayor criticize citizens for meeting with council members when they disagreed with him about a separate issue. He made it seem that it was unreasonable for people to meet with elected officials. This act, combined with his initial approval of the Sunroad building (too high for airport safety), leads me to believe that the mayor thinks of himself as the king, not the mayor.
While government by committee can be a messy way to operate, the thought of having a dictator in charge who places the business community above citizen safety is outright frightening. I will vote “no” on Prop. D.
Ronald Harris,
Scripps Ranch
Hadley: right at first
About “No more footstep-following” [“Letters,” May 26]: It was certainly amusing to see letter writer Chuck Bahde of La Mesa citing my Zenger’s Newsmagazine interview with District 6 City Council candidate Steve Hadley, in which Hadley expressed his skepticism towards privatizing or outsourcing city services.
If Hadley has indeed backtracked on his opposition to privatization, I’m disappointed in him because I think he got it right the first time. Despite the myth that private companies are always “more efficient” than government agencies, the fact is that private companies can do services for less than city departments only in one of two ways: either cutting the pay and benefits of the workers who provide the services or reducing the quality of service. Real-world experience in other cities that have privatized essential services has shown that they usually do both. Check out the movie Thirst for the horrors of what happened to water service in Atlanta after it was privatized—including long stretches in which what came out of people’s taps was brown.
Public services are a public patrimony and a public trust. They should be kept in public hands. It’s one thing for a government to buy goods or services from the private sector—it happens all the time, and it should—but, to my mind, it’s better to have key services provided in the public sector, where they won’t be exploited for private profit and, at least in theory, the agencies can be held accountable through the political process than to privatize them and have both workers’ wages and the quality of service held hostage to private bureaucracies accountable only to their managers and shareholders, not the people.
Mark Gabrish Conlan,
North Park
Reconsider, CityBeat
Your support of Proposition 14, albeit lukewarm, was an unfortunate lapse in CityBeat’s usually sound political judgment. Rather than help repair our dysfunctional two-party system and give a voice to independent voters, Proposition 14 will stifle diversity and competition and increase the power of big-money in elections.
The early decision-making of Proposition 14 will reward incumbents, party insiders and those with access to big corporate donors (or their own personal wealth). Grassroots candidates from any party will have no time to raise funds necessary to compete and will be encouraged to drop out in order to not split the party vote.
Washington’s experience with a top-two primary in 2008 bears this out. For example, of 139 incumbents who ran in either state legislative, constitutional or congressional races, only one lost in the primary and only 5 percent of 139 races featured candidates from the same party.
Moreover, Proposition 14 is likely to drive small parties off the ballot. The main way minor parties stay on the ballot is by receiving at least 2 percent of the general-election vote every four years for one of the statewide constitutional offices like governor or secretary of state. If Proposition 14 passes, small-party candidates will be kept off the general-election ballot. Both the Peace and Freedom Party and the Libertarian Party would therefore lose ballot status immediately, and the Green Party would be threatened with loss of ballot status as well. Many voters who are disgruntled with the two major parties will have no one to vote for in the general election.
The opponents of Proposition 14 are not solely the Democratic and Republican parties, as you imply, but they include the Center for Voting and Democracy, the ACLU, the NAACP, California Labor Federation and the Peace and Freedom, Green and Libertarian parties. In contrast, business interests, including chambers of commerce across the state, the California Business Roundtable and Gov. Schwartzenegger are key supporters of Proposition 14.
I urge you to reconsider your position and oppose this attack on our democracy.
Ann Menasche,
Green Party candidate for secretary of state,
Golden Hill
14 is undemocratic
I am appalled by your support for a yes vote on Proposition 14 on the statewide ballot for the election on June 8, 2010 [“Editorial,” May 19]. The system that would be set up by the passage of this initiative would be profoundly undemocratic. You and others have repeatedly stated your belief that the representatives of both major parties in the state Legislature have engaged in extremism. Regardless of the merits of that view, and the overwhelming evidence would show that it is false, neither you nor anyone else has the right to impose it on all Californians in the general election by restricting our freedom, our rights and options.
The right to affiliate with a party of one’s own choice and have a representative of that party on the general-election ballot clearly articulating the views one agrees with and presenting those views to all the voters is a fundamental extension of our First Amendment rights to free speech and free thought. It is at the core of democracy. It is what makes our country truly democratic.
This initiative could lead to voters having to choose between only two conservative Republicans or only two allegedly progressive Democrats for many state and national offices. Candidates would not even have to state their party affiliation, thus leading to possible deception and encouraging a further retreat from the open discussion of issues and robust democratic discourse. And write-ins in the general election would be prohibited. You may call that democracy. I call it tyranny and utter madness.
This initiative would further consolidate the power of money, the rich and big-business people over nearly every sector of American life. It would thoroughly stomp on the rights of members of the current minor parties, and it would make horrendously more difficult the task of starting a new party that might overcome some of the defects of the currently existing parties, major and minor. Please vote no.
Richard Garner,
Chula Vista
Prop. D is big guv
About your election endorsements [“Editorial,” May 19]: There has been much publicized about the apparent lack of organized opposition to Prop. D, or the so-called strong-mayor form of government. Ironically, the Republican Party and the San Diego County Taxpayers Association, which have traditionally claimed opposition to large government and being fiscally responsible in San Diego, are anything but. Their support of Prop. D advocates for enlarging our city government by adding another unwarranted council district at a cost of more than $1 million annually.
Historically, strong-mayor governments are supported by lobbyists who bribe public officials with campaign contributions, vacation amenities and other forms of kickbacks in return for directing business to the lobbyist’s sponsors.
Finally, it is strange to the onlooking public that the city had to cut back on police, create fire-station brownouts, cut library and rec-center hours and defer maintenance projects, yet Councilmembers Kevin Faulconer and Carl DeMaio and San Diego County Taxpayers Association CEO Lani Lutar all claim the city can afford the ninth council district.
Fasten your seatbelts, folks—it’s going to be a bumpy ride if, on June 8, you don’t vote no and Prop. D passes.
Jarvis Ross,
Point Loma
