Category: Civil Rights

OB Rag Staff

The San Diego Community Coalition publishes this email bulletin to keep our members and the general public informed about important Council and Planning Commission hearings and other city public meetings.

Wednesday, February 18: Rules Committee, 9:00 a.m.

Agenda:

Item 2: Amendments to Council Policy 000-21 related to the submission of ballot proposals by the Mayor, the Council, City Hall departments and public agencies.

Why it matters: This proposal by Councilmember Raul Campillo would place new requirements on City-initiated ballot measures

“Don’t cause trouble. You’ll just make matters worse.”

PL-OB Monthly reporter Steven Mihailovich had a great piece on the OB Planning Board and its latest meeting on February 3 in the Feb. 11th issue of  Point Loma – OB Monthly  which is published by the SDU-T.

The most interesting part of his report for us was when he summarized in detail what some OBceans commented on during the Public Non-Agenda segment of the Board’s agenda. They had attended to raise concerns and support for their efforts to preserve OB’s historic district in order to prevent large-scale, super-dense or too-high new construction in the community.

Mihailovich’s account that follows raises very important details that OBceans need to acquaint themselves with because they go to the very existential heart of OB’s character.

Here is his report:

‘Emerging’ historical district
During non-agenda public comments at the board meeting, Barbara Houlton and Lynne Miller of the nonprofit organization Coastal Caretakers addressed an expected City Council vote Tuesday, Feb. 24, on adopting legislation called “Preservation and Progress Package A.”

If passed, the package would limit the status of Ocean Beach’s “emerging” historical district to the 72 beach cottages already designated historic and potentially open the rest of Ocean Beach to the city’s “Complete Communities” development rules.

By Donna Frye

Back in the mid ‘90s, I remember going to city council meetings to speak on issues that were important to me such as clean water and the public’s right to know what its government is doing and why.

I showed up because I hoped it would make a difference and also to help educate the public about their right to participate in government decisions, before, and not after, the decision was made. The open meeting laws that require public decisions to be made in public are known as the Brown Act. It also includes laws about public participation and remedies if the laws are not followed.

More often than not, however, I would wait hours to speak for my two or three minutes only to be made to feel like what I had to say didn’t matter; it felt like the decisions had been made in advance of the public meeting.

I referred to this exercise as “going through the drill.” The Brown Act refers to it as a collective concurrence and it’s not allowed. But it was usually really hard to prove.

Marimar Martinez is the Chicago woman who was shot 5 times by an ICE agent back in October 2025 and who lived to testify about it before a Congressional committee last week.

Because her testimony was edited by every news network and effectively back paged for lack of a better term, we here quote verbatim Marimar Martinez’ testimony before Congress in it’s entirety, just weeks after getting shot 5 times and leaving 7 bullet holes by ICE. This is the testimony that should have been heard by every American and heard around the world. Marimar Martinez testimony should have dominated the news cycle last week:

To the Rag reader who sent us the following, “Marimar is strength and love personified. This is what courage looks like, and she is an example for us all.”

[00:00:00:30 – 00:00:01:57]

Thank you for having me here.

[00:00:02:57 – 00:00:13:55]

Before I begin, I would like to take a moment to express my gratitude. Thank you, Chairman, for giving me the opportunity to be here today, for taking the time to hear my testimony.

City News Service – Times of SD /  Feb. 6, 2026

A San Diego federal judge has ordered the Trump administration to return three families that he ruled were deported unlawfully.

U.S. District Judge Dana Sabraw wrote in a Thursday, Feb.5, ruling that the deportations “clearly violated the spirit” of a 2023 settlement agreement that he approved, which sought to reunite and provide services for families separated at the southern border.

“Each of the removals was unlawful, and absent the removals, these families would still be in the United States and have access to the benefits and resources they are entitled to under the Settlement Agreement,” the judge wrote.

Sabraw, who has in previous rulings found that the Trump administration has violated the terms of the settlement, wrote that the family members were removed despite legally being in the U.S. on parole.

By Donna Frye / Op-Ed SD Union-Tribune / Feb. 8, 2026

On Jan. 5, the city of San Diego began charging residents and nonresidents to park at Balboa Park. To say that the rollout went badly is a gross understatement; the only way it could have been worse is if the city made everyone parallel park before paying.

There was extensive news coverage both before and after the paid parking was enacted showing widespread opposition to the parking fees for residents and nonresidents alike.

On Jan. 27, three City Council members who had voted in support of paid parking in Balboa Park held a press conference inside City Hall.

At that press conference, Council President Joe LaCava, Council President Pro Tem Kent Lee and Councilmember Sean Elo-Rivera jointly announced their proposal to suspend paid parking fees for residents, but keep the parking fees for nonresidents.

LaCava said he was docketing their proposal for the council meeting that would be held on Monday, Feb. 9. There was no mention of a ballot measure as part of their proposal.

On Jan. 28, the Rules Committee had a meeting. LaCava, Lee and Elo-Rivera are three of the five members who serve on the Rules Committee; LaCava is the chair and Lee is the vice chair.

By Mark Sherman / The Associated Press – 7SanDiego / February 4, 2026

The Supreme Court on Wednesday allowed California to use a new voter-approved congressional map that is favorable to Democrats in this year’s elections, rejecting a last-ditch plea from state Republicans and the Trump administration.

No justices dissented from the brief order denying the appeal without explanation, which is common on the court’s emergency docket.

The justices had previously allowed Texas’ Republican-friendly map to be used in 2026, despite a lower-court ruling that it likely discriminates on the basis of race.

Conservative Justice Samuel Alito wrote in December that it appeared both states had adopted new maps for political advantage, which the high court has previously ruled cannot be a basis for a federal lawsuit.

Republicans, joined by the Trump administration, claimed the California map improperly relied on race as well. But a lower court disagreed by a 2-1 vote. The Justice Department and White House did not immediately respond to messages seeking comment.

The justices’ unsigned order keeps in place districts that are designed to flip up to five seats now held by Republicans, part of a tit-for-tat nationwide