OB Rag

By Robert Reich / AlterNet / May 22, 2025

The old professor in me thinks the best way to convey to you how utterly awful the so-called “one big beautiful bill” passed by the House last night, May 22, actually is would be to give you this short ten-question exam. (Answers are in parenthesis, but first try to answer without looking at them.)

1. Does the House’s “one big beautiful bill” cut Medicare? (Answer: Yes, by an estimated $500 billion.)

2. Because the bill cuts Medicaid, how many Americans are expected to lose Medicaid coverage? (At least 8.6 million.)

3. Will the tax cut in the bill benefit the rich or the poor or everyone?(Overwhelmingly, the rich.)

San Diego U-T Editorial Board / May 23, 2025

Has San Diego Mayor Todd Gloria jumped the shark, to use the snarky phrase coined in the wake of a particularly ridiculous 1977 episode of the TV sitcom “Happy Days”? The possibility leapt to mind this week after one of the most confounding front-page stories in U-T history.

Here’s the background needed to appreciate this description: For decades, city voters have recognized the problem of compensation costs eating up the budget and crowding out needed services.

It’s why they decisively approved a charter amendment in 2006 that permitted the city to use independent contractors for services if they could do so more efficiently than city workers. It’s why they gave landslide approval to a ballot measure in 2012 ending costly defined-benefit pensions for most newly hired city employees. That the first measure was mostly ignored by elected city leaders and that the second measure was thrown out on narrow legal grounds didn’t invalidate what their passage said about voters’ wishes.

Meanwhile, the voters’ wisdom in trying to check pension costs has been repeatedly confirmed. In March, San Diego’s pension board unanimously approved a staggering $533.2 million annual pension payment for the city for the fiscal year beginning July 1. It was $44 million higher than the previous annual payment and $35 million higher than the pension system’s actuary forecast in 2024.

By Tom Watson / Democracy Docket – Reader Supported News / May 22, 2025

[See original for important links]

President Donald Trump began the week by threatening a quartet of accomplished musical artists who have dared to challenge his radical MAGA hegemony with federal prosecution. In typical unhinged fashion, Trump lashed out at superstars Beyoncé, Taylor Swift, Bruce Springsteen and Bono (an Irish citizen legally beyond his reptilian reach) — demanding a major investigation into these “unpatriotic entertainers” who campaigned for Kamala Harris last year, musicians he accused of being “corrupt and unlawful.”

In reality, Trump’s rant was ignited by Springsteen’s acerbic comments on stage at two concerts in Manchester, England last week. Springsteen, who is 75 and has taken part in American political and social protests since he played the No Nukes festival at Madison Square Garden in 1979, spoke more directly than any major entertainment figure has since Trump’s inauguration. Before those words sink into the oozing quicksand of daily outrage and click-chasing Trump media coverage, it’s worth a closer look at the message — because I think it’s an important moment in the evolution of the growing opposition to this authoritarian gang.

First, it’s important to note that Springsteen’s words were scripted. I watched the videos from both nights, and the words were clearly on the lyrics prompter that major artists use on stage. This was no rant of the moment — it was intentional, targeted and as carefully crafted as any song off Darkness on the Edge of Town. Springsteen posted a video and a full transcript to his website. This was a plan.

By Jeff McDonald / The San Diego Union-Tribune / May 19-21, 2025

Citing what they call a litany of past failures by San Diego officials, five residents filed a lawsuit on Monday, May 19, seeking to stop a city trash pickup fee before it can be formally approved by the City Council next month. The legal complaint accuses Mayor Todd Gloria and others of violating Proposition 218, a state ballot measure passed nearly 30 years ago that prohibits government agencies from charging more for services than the actual cost of delivering those services.

It’s the first legal challenge to the city’s effort to begin charging single-family homeowners for trash pickup since the passage of Measure B, the 2022 ballot measure that allowed the city to charge for trash service.

San Diego voters narrowly approved the proposition, overturning a 1919 law that had given the city authority to collect residential waste but also called for the service to remain free to single-family homes in perpetuity.

By Save Our Heritage Organization / May 23, 2025

In 2023, the City of San Diego launched a sweeping effort called the Preservation and Progress initiative, promoted as a way to “streamline processes for new homes and other uses while protecting places of historic, architectural and cultural importance and encouraging their adaptive reuse.” But behind this language lies a set of proposals that would weaken some of the most fundamental tools we have to preserve San Diego’s historic neighborhoods, homes, and landmarks.

The initiative is rooted in a false conflict — that preservation and housing are at odds. In fact, San Diego’s historic neighborhoods are already home to thousands of modestly scaled, walkable, and relatively affordable homes. These neighborhoods are not the problem — they are part of the solution.

Historic preservation has never been a major barrier to development. Preservation-related reviews apply to a small fraction of projects, and the city’s own data confirms that these reviews cause minimal delay. Yet this initiative would roll back protections under the guise of speeding up construction.

When fantasy maps meet real neighborhoods, communities pay the price.

By Mandy Havlik

Over the past few months, as I’ve participated in community meetings about Bonus ADUs and high-density housing programs, I’ve repeatedly heard a common concern from residents across Ocean Beach, Point Loma, Pacific Beach, and beyond: the Sustainable Development Area (SDA) and Transit Priority Area (TPA) maps are wrong, wildly overreaching, and far too ambitious for what actually exists on the ground.

Whether it was long-time homeowners, small business owners, or renters worried about parking and infrastructure, the message was the same: our neighborhoods are being redefined by maps that seem more imaginary than informed.

As a proud resident of our coastal community, I fully support the need for a robust regional transit system, one that connects San Diegans efficiently, equitably, and sustainably. But SANDAG’s latest regional transit plan, and its accompanying map designating so-called “major transit stops,” raises serious concerns not just locally, but citywide.

Neighborhoods like Mission Beach, Ocean Beach, Point Loma, Pacific Beach, and La Jolla are directly affected by these designations. The plan identifies areas along Cable Street, Rosecrans Street, Mission Boulevard, La Jolla Boulevard, and potentially even Torrey Pines Road as “major transit stops.”

Dear KPBS:

This communication is to express my extreme shock and dismay at KPBS writer Andrew Bowen’s highly misleading reporting from Thursday, May 22, regarding the mayor’s proposed modifications to the city’s Bonus ADU Program.

His statements about Gloria’s proposal “blocking housing in San Diego’s whitest, wealthiest neighborhoods” add up to the most ignorant and infuriating news story I’ve heard to date on KPBS. As a devoted listener and contributor to your station for many years, I question whether I want to support your station in the future, given Andrew Bowen’s consistent biased news reporting.

By Kate Callen

Golden Hill has long been a community with abundant charm – Wikipedia describes it as “one of San Diego’s most historic and architecturally eclectic zones” – where peaceful people live on quiet streets.

Not anymore.

The saturation density that has engulfed San Diego is hitting Golden Hill especially hard. It’s bad enough that massive ugly projects are disfiguring its picturesque neighborhoods. But developers are deliberately building eyesores at sites most beloved by the community.

That has made the normally peaceful community deeply angry.

Turnout at the May 20 Greater Golden Hill Planning Committee meeting was so large that it had to be moved to a bigger room at the Golden Hill Rec Center. Even then, the crowd filled every seat and spilled out into the hallway.

They came to protest two informational agenda items. The first project will put five homes on canyonland near the popular Grape Street Dog Park. The second will build an 8-story,180-unit tower near Albert Einstein Academy Charter Elementary School.

By Jim Peugh and Nan Renner / Op-Ed San Diego U-T / May 20, 2025

City leaders face difficult tradeoffs as they navigate budget decisions. City tax revenue must cover essential services and infrastructure needs. At the same time, city government aims to fulfill legal obligations and environmental responsibilities, all while respecting the will of voters.

Increasing Mission Bay’s vanishing wetlands uniquely meets all these criteria and constraints, using funds already earmarked by voters specifically for this purpose.

San Diego voters passed Proposition C (2008) and Measure J (2016) creating a clear roadmap for Mission Bay Park Improvement Funds. Binding priorities in the City Charter Section 55.2 direct taxpayer investments first toward navigable waterways, then environmental restoration and protection, and last to deferred maintenance projects. These dedicated funds cannot be diverted to address any other citywide needs, no matter how pressing.

This year, Mission Bay Park Improvement Funds to be spent in Mission Bay Park amount to $18.8 million. At present, the city budget allocates not one dollar of this restricted fund to wetland restoration, the top remaining priority set by San Diego voters.

By Geoff Page

The only way to access the site of the “cottages” is by turning west off Catalina Blvd. onto Lomaland Drive and driving onto the Nazarene University campus. Just past the intersection of Lomaland Drive and Lomaland Drive – yes there is such an intersection – is a dirt road to the west that is easy to miss.

The four units are on the west side of the dirt road, facing Sunset Cliffs Park below. At the end of the short road are Units #4 and #3.

Unit #4 is a very small building, only 400 square feet according the to the tenants in Unit #3. Unit #3 is a small one-bedroom place next to it. Unit #2 has been empty for 18 years and it looks like it. Unit #1 is referred to as the Corbin House. Unlike the other three, Unit #1 is a substantial house, inhabited, but also in a state of disrepair. This is the house proponents are pushing for historical designation.

The retired couple renting Unit #3 were home and happy to talk about what was happening. Joe and Debbie Corr’s house is small, a one-bedroom. The living room has a spectacular wide view – what some might call a million-dollar view – of the Pacific Ocean below. There is a small deck outside the living room window. The house is mostly wood and concrete block, clearly old.

Here are the details for the Historic Resources Board meeting on the Point Loma cottages.

Today, Thursday, May 22, 2025, at 12:00 P.M.

Location: Public Utilities Department Metropolitan Operations Complex II (MOC2) Auditorium
9192 Topaz Way San Diego, CA 92123

See this for HRB Agenda

At noon there is an awards program, the business agenda will likely not begin until 1pm.

ITEM-1 Continued from March 27, 2025:  ROSE VOLLMER/ RICHARD LAREAU RENTAL HOUSE Applicant/Owner: City of San Diego represented by Heritage Architecture & Planning

Staff: Suzanne Segur — Consider the designation of the property located at 4101 Lomaland Drive, 92107, Peninsula Community, Council District 2, as a historical resource. Report Number: HRB-25-011

PROPOSED ACTION

Designate or not designate the property as a historical resource under adopted designation criteria.

By Francine Maxwell / May 20, 2025

I am a San Diego resident, a taxpayer, and somebody who still believes this city belongs to the people. This is my request to the City Council as it tries to navigate our financial crisis.

Let’s be clear: the Mayor has done his job. He proposed a draft budget to close a $258-million deficit. If you don’t like it — and I don’t — your job is to propose something better. The people of San Diego didn’t elect nine Councilmembers to rubber-stamp bad ideas. They elected you to lead.

This budget is a moral document. And what it says right now is: The City values bureaucracy over neighborhoods. It protects middle management and redundant executive positions while gutting services our communities rely on. Five-day library service? Parks losing a third of their programming hours? And residents paying for it through $47 trash fees, water rate hikes, $2.50-an-hour parking meters, and who knows what next?