By Paul Krueger
California has robust protections for citizen participation in the government process, with laws that require open meetings and encourage full public participation at the local level.
But City Council President Joe LaCava violated the spirit — if not the letter — of those protections today (Monday, Nov. 17) when he made it extremely — and unnecessarily difficult for San Diegans to keep informed about important actions related to a controversial building height limit in the Midway/Pacific Highway area.
The City Council met today in Closed Session to discuss — and probably vote on — Mayor Todd Gloria and City Attorney Heather Ferbert’s effort to overturn the recent appellate court ruling that reinstates the 30-foot height limit throughout the 1,300-acre Midway/ Pacific Highway district.
That unanimous appellate court ruling requires the city to perform a more comprehensive environmental study of the negative impacts of high-density, high-rise development in the Midway/Pac Hwy area. Armed with this additional information, voters would — for the third time — decide the size and shape of future development in that neighborhood.
Gloria, Ferbert, and pro-development forces want the State Supreme Court to overturn the appellate court ruling and give an unequivocal green light to potentially massive construction.
On the other side are community groups, environmentalists, and so-called “smart growth” advocates, who claim the city has repeatedly shirked its duty to fully disclose the negative impacts of large-scale development. They oppose what they say would be a costly and futile legal appeal.
Closed Session meetings give our elected officials the ability to discuss in private the pros and cons of a possible appeal, without publicly disclosing possible legal strategies.
But the council’s rules require it to disclose in open session any action it takes in Closed Session, and how council members voted on that issue.
At this morning’s meeting, I asked them to also state on the record their reasons for voting as they did on the proposed height-limit appeal. I’m not alone in arguing that the height-limit debate is less of a legal issue than a political and policy decision, and that the public deserves to know where their representatives stand on this important and very controversial issue.
Council President La Cava didn’t respond to my request.
Worse, he refused to provide advance notice about when the council will reconvene in open session to reveal what — if any — action he and his colleagues took on the proposed height-limit appeal.
That’s not a big ask.
La Cava could alert the clerk when the council is close to finishing its Closed Session deliberations, and the clerk could send a standard email alert that the council will reconvene later today (or tonight) at a chosen time.
It’s my understanding that the council could also wait until tomorrow (Tuesday’s) regularly scheduled meeting to disclose its Closed Session actions.
Either of those options would foster the kind of public involvement in the political process that our lawmakers supposedly value.
La Cava did neither.
Instead, he said the Closed Session discussion on the height-limit and other agenda items will probably last until 6 pm, and that the public can monitor the city’s televised broadcasts throughout the day (and night?) to see when the council reconvenes in open session.
That’s an unacceptable alternative that clearly hinders the public’s right to attend public meetings in person or virtually, and to confront their elected officials.
La Cava is doing his best to shield himself — and his colleagues — from the public scrutiny they should face on this important issue.
He may succeed in minimizing news coverage of the council’s vote and spare himself and his colleagues from criticism for whatever stance they take. But in doing so, he’s violating the public trust and slamming the door on our state’s supposed commitment to open government and the public’s right to know.
Corruption proliferates in the absence of light…
Paul, thank you for your persistence and your willingness to publicize your interactions with the Council President. I agree that Mr. LaCava had multiple options as to how he could deal with your request. I also agree with your characterization of the option he chose. It was an unfortunate but telling choice.
Progress, keep holding their feet to the fire!
Bravo, Paul Krueger!!
Thank you??
So, Paul, what is the difference between Dan Smiechowski who has no criminal or civil record being banned from the OB Rag and Joe Lacava’s limiting public comments? The irony is as a public official Dan would do the opposite of Lacava.
This is the email of Dan Smiechowski who is running, again, for city council D2, but who has been banned from the Rag for making racist and misogynist comments.
Shame on the six Councilmembers — LaCava, von Wilpert, Campbell, Whitburn, Lee, and Elo-Rivera — who voted to support Gloria’s desperate attempt to salvage this toxic project. Do they have the courage to explain their votes to their constituents? Do they think we had all the information we needed before casting ballots about the height limit? Making this decision behind closed doors only adds to the disgrace. If the lawsuit fails, they will have to answer for the money squandered on it.
TO SOLVE THESE CONSTANT PROBLEMS, WE NEED A REFERENDUM ON CITY POLICY
City policy can limit discretion of the council and council members about a host of details. The city has been making decisions that we oppose, it appears that the council and city government are not aligned with us about our goals for livability in our communities. I posted a poll about this on this Nextdoor platform; the ideas is to give residents in every San Diego community the ability to weigh in about their community goals and build a consensus that can overcome the inertia. The poll on Nextdoor asks if you would favor this in PL/OB https://nextdoor.com/p/jBk6mCCRkfTZ?
The voters voting for mayor and council, should really be observant of their representatives hair brained ideas and stop voting for them for ANYTHING. Collectively this group has the City of SD in a HUGE mess on many projects. If a political candidate has never been a politician, to get a feel for what they’re all about, then go to meet and greets and ask direct questions of all the candidates, and watch/pay attention to the one that consistently responds with direct answers. Those that won’t offer direct answers…. don’t vote for them. Voting by Party is what got this group keeping the public uninformed, secret/closed door meetings, or not paying attention to what their constituents want.
Provisions of the Brown Act Open Meeting law are often circumvented. Besides, open meetings can’t accomplish anything close to full public participation. We have no room large enough to accommodate a meaningful number of residents of Point Loma and few would be heard in a meeting that large! But handful of people that don’t listen to us, making decisions about our ability to enjoy life?
If we want full public participation, we can use our online technology so we can build consensus for what we want and weigh in on decisions that shape our communities, our lives-our children’s opportunities.
No matter how well-intended, no council member can truly challenge institutional power (major donors/endorsers) without the consensus of their constituents standing behind them-not a little crowd of the faithful at a council meeting, but a majority of the community showing a verified consensus.
in view of the opportunity that San Diego has always been, isn’t it shameful for us to continue to squander and mismanage our opportunity to make wise use of the paradisiacal environment we are given. And just think that communities can control that with a little better use and understanding of online technology!