What Does ‘Conservative’ Even Mean, When Discussing Martha Abraham’s Supporters?

By Paul Krueger

In their recent, pay-wall protected analysis of City Council District 4 candidate Martha Abraham’s campaign, Voice of San Diego editors opined that “conservatives” constitute a significant base of Abraham’s support.

I responded by email to VOSD editor Scott Lewis and assistant editor Will Huntsberry, and acknowledged that some “conservatives” do in fact support Abraham’s campaign.
But that one-word description overstates their influence, ignores important political differences among those supporters, and understates the non-partisan nature of the support for Abraham’s challenge to incumbent Henry Foster.

It’s true that Abraham’s supporters include some political activists who skew to the political “right.” Some of them are outspoken — even vitriolic — critics of some Democratic officeholders, including Todd Gloria and Gavin Newsom. And, yes, some also support Republican candidates.

They also helped organize “San Diego United Communities,” and have prominent — if not outsized-roles — in that group’s actions.

(For the record, while I share their posts and respect their opposition to the Mayor’s hyper-development policies, I’m not a member of San Diego United Communities. That group was formed by activists who were disillusioned with the apolitical, non-partisan and non-confrontative stance taken by the San Diego Community Coalition, which Kate Callen, Frank Gormlie, and I organized.)

I support Martha’s campaign. I’ve known her since she made her first public comments during council meetings opposing the controversial “Footnote 7” policy that enabled developers to greatly increase density in Encanto and adjoining neighborhoods. I recognized her leadership skills, her independence, her willingness to challenge the Building Industry Association/ Chamber of Commerce/ YIMBY Dems narrative on land-use and housing. I admired her independence, her speaking ability, and her upbeat personality. I encouraged her to challenge Henry Foster and elevate the political conversation in District 4.

I’ve attended Martha’s events, contributed to her campaign, and am walking a precinct for her.

From my vantage point, these so-called “conservatives” have an extremely limited role in Martha’s campaign. I think they’re motivated primarily by their intense opposition to the mayor and council majority’s support for high-density, mega-development projects on small parcels in neighborhoods built for single-family homes. They’re also fed up with the mismanagement and financial chaos that define the current administration. And they’re expressing that understandable anger with an anti-incumbent rage that targets Henry Foster and Kent Lee in District 6. (And yes, most if not all of these “conservatives” support Richard Bailey in District 2.)

But I think Foster’s campaign knowingly overstates any possible influence these “conservatives” have on Martha to create the false impression that this small group of mostly Republican, mostly white, mostly non-District 4 residents are carpetbaggers intent on imposing their political agenda on District 4 residents.
It’s a false and very cynical narrative, but I understand that it’s also how politics is done.

The Voice does get one thing right in its description of another group of Martha’s supporters. These are the long-time District 4 residents “…(who) believe the area has never gotten its fair and equitable share of resources.”

The Voice also correctly notes that “Many of those people are, in theory at least, more on the left of the political spectrum.”

But this is a non-partisan race. And this sizable group of Martha’s D-4 supporters shares with the “conservative” outsiders an intense anger about city hall’s willful disregard for neighborhood opposition to high-density apartment construction that ignores community concern and serves the financial interests of developers and investors who have no connection with — and no consideration for — the quality of life in District 4.

On a personal note, I’m admittedly conflicted about opposing Henry Foster’s re-election.

My colleagues and I across the city who have pushed for moderate, smart, sustainable development are forever indebted to Henry for his leadership role in securing council approval of limits on multi-unit ADU projects.

I also applaud Henry’s strong criticism of the Mayor’s mismanagement of city finances and operations, and his insistence that the mayor and city attorney do a better job of limiting taxpayer liability for personal injury and other lawsuits tied to our failing infrastructure.

Henry also spoke out forcefully for reforms and better training for police officers, following the officer-involved shooting death of 16-year-old Konoa Wilson.

But my admiration for his stance on those and other issues can’t overcome my feeling that we need radical change at city hall. We need new voices, not encumbered by the legacy of mismanagement and the failure of council members to stand-up early and demand the significant changes we need to get this city back on track with its finances and operations.

Most importantly, we must begin the very difficult task of restoring voters’ trust in city government. And I think electing new representatives in District 4 and 6 is a crucial step in this process.