Category: Election

By Kate Callen / September 26, 2025

As expected, the San Diego Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend the Midway Rising proposal after in-person public comments were dominated by speakers who will directly benefit from the development.

But there were a few surprises. Five commissioners seemed dubious about transportation issues, especially plans to develop now and upgrade transit later. And an observation from one of the newest commissioners could be the most shockingly honest remark a San Diego public official has ever made.

Jeana Renger questioned future traffic projections for the notoriously congested Midway district and said this: “Transit-oriented development is only successful if there is a whole system of buses and trolleys and also ridership. Just because you build it doesn’t necessarily mean they will ride it.”

(If anyone wants to thank Ms. Renger, an executive vice president at Ferguson Pape Baldwin Architects, for having the courage to speak a truth too long denied, her email address is jrenger@fpbarch.com.)

By OB Rag Staff / September 25, 2025

It’s showtime.

The Office of the San Diego City Clerk has a “2026 Election Information” webpage which shows the candidates who have publicly declared their intention to run for a City Council District seat. Their names are listed here. Hyperlinks will take you to the active websites of those candidates.

Council District 2

Josh Coyne

Nicole Crosby

Mandy Havlik

The progressive voice of Point Loma, OB and Loma Portal since 1954

Sep 28 – Monthly Meeting, Immigration & Prop 50
Sunday, September 28, 4:00-5:30PM, Pt Loma Assembly
Point Loma & OB Dems

Immigration

Cheri Attix, practicing Immigration Attorney for nearly 30 year and past San Diego Chapter President of the American Immigration Lawyers Association, will hold a Q&A session with no presentation, so members can drive the conversation.

Prop 50 — Learn more and volunteer

Ground-breaking begins for controversial Rose Creek Village

Shovels overturned some dirt in eastern Pacific Beach. It was the ground-breaking for a controversial 5-story apartment building that will reverberate throughout San Diego’s coastal zones, called the Rose Creek Village at 2662 Garnet Avenue.

It’s controversial because it’s the first development allowed to breach the sacrosanct 30-foot height limit in the coastal zone — and the City and County of San Diego along with the State of California have all conspired to allow this to happen. And all these levels of government are doing this for the grandiose purpose that the building once completed will offer 60 homes earmarked for seniors, families, and individuals earning between 30% and 60% of the area’s median income, along with the dedication of 18 units specifically for homeless veterans.

Now who wouldn’t allow this? Who would oppose this worthy project?

Our simple answer: the tens of thousands of San Diego voters who approved the 30-foot height limit for the coastal zones in 1972.

At one point, about a year ago, San Diego City Councilmember Joe LaCava, who represents the Pacific Beach community, sought to kill the project.

By Gillian Mohney / SFGate / Sep 15, 2025 

Officials at UC Berkeley have sent over a hundred names of students and staff to federal officials, who are looking into allegations of antisemitism as part of an ongoing federal investigation.

The names of 160 students, faculty and staff were sent to the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights after the office demanded documents related to complaints of antisemitism and discrimination at the university.

[See below for “Backlash”]

“The UC systemwide Office of the General Counsel (OGC), in compliance with its legal obligations to cooperate with the agency, directed UC Berkeley to provide those documents to the federal agency,” Janet Gilmore, the senior director of strategic communications at UC Berkeley, said in an emailed statement. “Numerous documents were provided over recent months to OCR, including the names of individuals in those reports.”

Gilmore added that the individuals were notified last week if they were named in the documents sent to the federal investigators.

It is very true: top officials in the Trump administration — including Vice-President Vance, Attorney General Pam Bondi, White House senior advisor Steven Miller — and Trump himself — are using the horrific killing of Charlie Kirk a week ago as America’s version of the Reichstag fire that broke out in Berlin, Germany in 1933.

What’s this? you may ask. What was the Reichstag fire?

Turning immediately to Wikipedia, we find the following:

The Reichstag fire was an arson attack on the Reichstag building, home of the German parliament in Berlin, on Monday, 27 February 1933, precisely four weeks after Adolf Hitler was sworn in as Chancellor of Germany. …The Nazis attributed the fire to a group of Communist agitators, used it as a pretext to claim that Communists were plotting against the German government, and induced President Paul von Hindenburg to issue the Reichstag Fire Decree suspending civil liberties and pursue a “ruthless confrontation” with the Communists.This made the fire pivotal in the establishment of Nazi Germany. …

After the Fire Decree was issued, the police – now controlled by Hitler’s Nazi Party – made mass arrests of communists, including all of the communist Reichstag delegates. This severely crippled communist participation in the 5 March elections. After the 5 March elections, the absence of the communists allowed the Nazi Party to expand their plurality in the Reichstag, greatly assisting the Nazi seizure of total power. Wikipedia

On Charlie Kirk’s killing: the Left — condolences and calls for gun reform; the Right — calls for war against the Left

By Ezra Klein / New York Times – Democratic Underground / September 7, 2025

In about three weeks, the government’s funding will run out. Democrats will face a choice: Join Republicans to fund a government that President Trump is turning into a tool of authoritarian takeover and vengeance or shut the government down.

Democrats faced a version of this choice back in March. DOGE, the Department of Government Efficiency, was chain-sawing its way through the government. Civil servants were being fired left and right. Government grants and payments were being choked off and reworked into tools of political power and punishment. Trump was signing executive orders demanding the investigation — I would say, the persecution — of his enemies. He had announced shocking tariffs on Mexico and Canada. We were in the muzzle velocity stage of this presidency. And Democrats seemed completely overwhelmed and outmatched.

I often heard people complain that Democrats lacked a message. What Democrats really lacked was power. They didn’t have the House or the Senate, but they did have one sliver of leverage: To fund the government, Senate Republicans needed Democratic votes. And not just one or two. They needed at least seven Democrats to reach that magic 60-vote threshold. House Democrats wanted a shutdown. But Chuck Schumer, the leader of the Senate Democrats, didn’t. He voted for the funding bill and encouraged a crucial number of his colleagues to do the same. The bill passed.

To many Democrats, this seemed insane. Some began openly calling for Schumer to resign or face a primary challenge. This was Democrats’ first real opportunity to fight back against Trump, and they had folded. What were they good for?

By Ed Kilgore / New York Magazine- Readers Supported News / September 8, 2025

The ability to retaliate against Donald Trump’s power grabs and other outrages is a rare pleasure for Democrats, which is why Gavin Newsom’s counter-gerrymandering effort in California is so wildly popular among Democrats. If Democrats can’t stop Trump’s egregious policies in Congress (and they really can’t) and the U.S. Supreme Court is either enabling him or slow-walking efforts to rein him in (which it clearly is), then they need different arenas in which to contest his authoritarian ways.

Since Trump chose to intervene in state-government prerogatives by ordering the Texas legislature to grab the GOP some new U.S. House districts, it made perfect sense for California to respond, even though it would require a constitutional amendment enacted via an insanely expensive ballot-initiative fight.

But Democrats shouldn’t reflexively ape Trump’s every excess, particularly in formulating an agenda for their eventual return to power. They currently have the high ground with a small but strategically critical share of voters who dislike partisan power grabs no matter who is carrying them out. These voters may not want to restore Democrats to power in 2026 or 2028 if they believe that when it comes to lawless conduct, “both sides do it.”

Here’s the very latest from Washington, DC, the nation’s capital — your capital. There’s a brand new lawsuit from DC officials that challenges Trump’s use of the National Guard as a “military occupation.” A Federal Judge in D.C. said U.S. Atty. Jeanine Pirro’s office have tarnished its reputation with how they are handling the deluge of hundreds of cases. And leaders in the House and Senate are not planning to hold votes to extend President Donald Trump’s temporary control of D.C. police before it expires next week. Here’s details ….

DC lawsuit challenges Trump’s National Guard deployment as a forced ‘military occupation’

The District of Columbia on Thursday [Sept.4] challenged President Donald Trump’s use of the National Guard in Washington, asking a federal court to intervene even as he plans to send troops to other cities in the name of driving down crime. Brian Schwalb, the district’s elected attorney general, said in a lawsuit that the deployment, which now involves more than 1,000 troops, is an illegal use of the military for domestic law enforcement.

“No American jurisdiction should be involuntarily subjected to military occupation,” Schwalb wrote.

The White House said deploying the Guard to protect federal assets and assist law enforcement is within Trump’s authority as president. “This lawsuit is nothing more than another attempt — at the detriment of D.C. residents and visitors — to undermine the President’s highly successful operations to stop violent crime in D.C.,” spokeswoman Abigail Jackson said.

Protests against the Trump regime took place Monday, Labor Day, across San Diego County with the largest and most significant event in downtown San Diego at Waterfront Park.

San Diego’s protests joined “Workers Over Billionaires” demonstrations throughout the country in cities that included Chicago, Boston, Los Angeles and New York in a nationwide Labor Day effort organized by labor unions and other groups. Other demonstrations in the county included those in Chula Vista, La Jolla, Mira Mesa, Rancho Bernardo, Carlsbad, and Escondido. Local members and allies turned out to demand investment in schools, health care, housing, and climate action over corporate wealth. The Service Employees International Union and the San Diego and Imperial Counties Labor Council were among the local event organizers.

Organizers using a scientific approach to crowd counting, determined that close to 10,000 attended the rally and march at Waterfront Park. Event spokesman Mark Sauer said, “Considering it’s a holiday for working folks, (turnout) was encouraging,” said Sauer, who added the rally was peaceful as no counter-protesters materialized.

The downtown crowd was estimated to be 1,200 to 1,500 people according to the San Diego Union-Tribune. NBC7 reported the Waterfront event drew between 2,000-3,000 people, a San Diego police official told the station.

Along with promoting the importance of organized labor, Sauer said speakers focused on the November special election for Proposition 50 — an effort by Gov. Gavin Newsom to redraw California’s congressional districts to negate a similar move in Texas — Trump administration policies’ effect on working families, and how the 2026 midterm elections will be a way “to put some serious checks and balances” on them, organizers said.