OB Rag

By Gary Wonacott

The time has com for the District 1 office to initiate a formal review by the Planning Department to evaluate the feasibility and benefits of consolidating the Mission Beach and Pacific Beach Community Planning Areas (CPA).

The current boundaries— drawn more than half a century ago— no longer reflect the realities of how our communities function, nor do they support the level of representation and planning capacity required to address today’s coastal challenges. Reunification is not simply an administrative adjustment; it is a necessary modernization that would restore political balance, strengthen resident voices, and finally give Mission Beach a fair opportunity to secure long?overdue infrastructure investment.

Mission Beach was originally part of the Pacific Beach CPA before being separated in the mid?20th century to provide more localized planning control. Yet the Mission Beach Precise Plan, drafted in the 1970s, identified a long list of deficiencies— aging infrastructure, visual blight, inadequate landscaping, and a lack of community amenities— that remain largely unresolved today.

Over the past two decades, the situation has only deteriorated. The seawall continues to crumble along its entire length. Alleys and utilities lag behind modern standards.  In spite of many “Get it Done Requests,” court lamp lights remain burnt out for months at a time.  Vehicles fail to stop at stop signs and speed down Mission Blvd with impunity.

By Brian White / CBS8 / Jan. 2, 2026

Parking frustration is boiling over in Bankers Hill, where several newly installed parking meters along Sixth Avenue have been vandalized just weeks after enforcement began.

CBS 8 found several meters near Balboa Park appear to have been deliberately damaged, some clogged with what looks like spray foam or contractor-grade glue, and one spray-painted green, obscuring the screen and payment slots.

San Diego Police tell CBS 8 that 12 pay parking stations were vandalized over the course of a month. According to San Diego Police Officer Anthony Carrasco, one was covered in a “biological material, believed to be fecal matter.” He said officers investigating took a DNA swab of what was smeared on the screen.

People who live nearby say they’re not surprised.

“I’m really not surprised,” said Joshua Jones, who lives along Sixth Avenue.

Giovanna Allain echoed that reaction, saying, “I’m not surprised, we’re just kind of rebelling against it.”

The Ocean Beach Planning Board holds its first 2026 meeting Tuesday night, January 6. Here is the official agenda:

By Angelo Haynes

At 3pm Saturday, January 3rd, several hundred San Diegans representing a diverse coalition of local San Diego activist groups gathered in front of the San Diego County Administration Building to protest the recent US military intervention in Venezuela. Groups ranging from feminist activist groups such as Code Pink, to Veteran organizations such as Veterans for Peace came together on short notice to speak and contribute to the march.

The Trump administration’s recent military intervention is an escalation from the recent aggressive naval attacks in the region, resulting in the capture of President Nicolas Maduro and Venezuelan First Lady Cilia Flores.

Organizers began planning the march Friday night after news broke of US forces beginning their bombing operation of the capital city of Caracas. Planning and mobilization efforts were then accelerated when it was discovered that president Maduro was kidnapped to be brought onto American soil to be prosecuted on narco-terrorism charges.

What is the War Powers Resolution? – History and Major Facts

The War Powers Resolution, also known as the War Powers Act of 1973, is a pivotal piece of U.S. federal legislation designed to reassert Congress’s authority in decisions concerning military engagements and to limit the U.S. president’s authority to commit American forces to armed conflict without congressional approval. .

It was passed in the wake of escalating concerns over the U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War and executive overreach in wartime decisions.

Although it became law over President Richard Nixon‘s veto, the resolution has sparked significant legal, political, and constitutional debates since its enactment

Understanding the War Powers Resolution requires exploring its historical context, its legislative framework, and how it has been applied and interpreted in the decades since its passage.

Historical Background

The roots of the War Powers Resolution can be traced back to growing frustration among members of Congress over the U.S. executive branch’s increasing control of military decisions, particularly during the Cold War.

The Vietnam War, which began as a limited U.S. advisory role, escalated into one of the most controversial and protracted military engagements in American history, despite the absence of a formal congressional declaration of war. This set the stage for Congress to take action to reassert its constitutional authority over war powers.

From Washington Post / Jan. 3, 2025

President Donald Trump said Saturday at his Mar-a-Lago Club that the United States will control Venezuela for an unspecified period after a U.S. operation captured Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wife.

“We’ll run it properly. We’ll run it professionally. We’ll have the greatest oil companies in the world go in and invest billions,” he said, while declining to rule out U.S. military deployments. “We’re not afraid of boots on the ground.”

The operation involved more than 150 aircraft, including strike and intelligence assets, Gen. Dan Caine, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said after Trump’s remarks. “On arrival into the target area, the helicopters came under fire and they replied with that fire with overwhelming force,” Caine added. “One of our aircraft was hit but remained flyable.”

Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, “gave up and were taken into custody” by U.S. forces, Caine said. The couple was removed from the country by helicopter, taken aboard the USS Iwo Jima and will be brought to New York, where both are facing federal charges.

Trump said the U.S. had prepared to mount a second-wave attack in Venezuela but that he doubted it would be needed.

Trump: US Oil Companies Will Take Over Venezuela’s Oil Fields

U.S. oil companies are going to take over Venezuela’s oil fields and industry, President Donald Trump said Saturday, declaring that U.S. oil interests will revive oil production in a country with one of the world’s largest reserves.

Several “No War on Venezuela” protests are being planned across the country today, after the US conducted a large-scale strike on the city of Caracas and captured Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro.

“We need to take to the streets and say no to another endless war! The people of this country do not want another war! A U.S. war would cause death and destruction for the people of Venezuela,” the Answer Coalition, one group organizing the protests, wrote in a news release.

Demonstrations are planned for Chicago, New York’s Times Square, outside the White House in Washington, DC, along with city halls and statehouses across the country this afternoon.

Meanwhile, In Congress 

Members of the US Congress on Saturday, Jan. 3, demanded emergency legislative action to prevent the Trump administration from taking further military action in Venezuela after the president threatened a “second wave” of attacks and said the US will control the South American country’s government indefinitely.

Rep. Greg Casar (D-Texas), chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC), said that “Congress should vote immediately on a War Powers Resolution to stop” President Donald Trump, whose administration has for months unlawfully bombed boats in international waters and threatened a direct military assault on Venezuela without lawmakers’ approval.

“Trump has no right to take us to war with Venezuela. This is reckless and illegal,” said Casar. “My entire life, politicians have been sending other people’s kids to die in reckless regime change wars. Enough. No new wars.”

A day after the strikes on Venezuela and the kidnapping of its president by elements of the U.S. military, I guess we can now relax over any concerns that our military men and women wouldn’t follow illegal orders. For, the invasion of a sovereign country and the illegal abduction of its leader without Congressional approval (or even notice) by our army and navy are clearly illegal and against the Constitution.

Apparently, our boys and girls wearing US uniforms didn’t stop their actions in this attack against US and international law.

What a sigh of relief.

It was not even two months ago that a squad of Democratic congresspeople produced a video distributed widely telling military and intelligence officers to “refuse illegal orders.” Which is the law. Here’s that video they made:  a video .

In a statement shortly after the US bombings, Maduro’s government accused Washington of an “extremely serious military aggression”.

“Venezuela rejects, repudiates, and denounces before the international community the extremely serious military aggression perpetrated by the current government of the United States of America against Venezuelan territory and people,” the Venezuelan government said.

Here’s a look at how other countries are also reacting to the US attack and “capture” of Maduro.

Colombia
“Alerting the whole world that they have attacked Venezuela,” Colombian President Gustavo Petro wrote in a series of statements posted on the social media platform X.

“The Republic of Colombia reiterates its conviction that peace, respect for international law, and the protection of life and human dignity must prevail over any form of armed confrontation,” Petro said.

In a separate post, he said Colombia “rejects the aggression against the sovereignty of Venezuela and of Latin America”.

Petro later announced the deployment of military forces to the Venezuelan border.

Mexico
In a statement on X, President Claudia Sheinbaum said “Mexico condemns the military intervention in Venezuela.”

She also included in her post an article in the UN Charter which states: “The Members of the Organization, in their international relations, shall refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.”

By Annie Karni / New York Times / Jan. 3, 2026, 10:46 a.m. ET

While President Trump crowed on Saturday about the dramatic capture of President Nicolás Maduro of Venezuela by U.S. authorities, Democrats in Congress sounded alarms about the legality of the action and raised questions about recent briefings in which administration officials assured them that they were not seeking regime change in the nation.

Senator Andy Kim, Democrat of New Jersey, accused Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth of having “blatantly” lied to Congress when they said the administration’s objective in Venezuela was not about toppling Mr. Maduro. He called the move to oust the Venezuelan leader “disastrous,” arguing that it would further isolate the United States on the global stage.

“Trump rejected our Constitutionally required approval process for armed conflict because the Administration knows the American people overwhelmingly reject risks pulling our nation into another war,” Mr. Kim, a former national security official in the Obama administration, wrote on social media.

Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz, a Florida Democrat who represents a district in which Venezuelan immigrants cheered for the news, said that Mr. Maduro’s capture was “welcome” but that the way it was done raised serious questions.

Early Saturday, January 3rd, the Trump regime conducted a blatant and illegal act of war against Venezuela by bombing civilian and military sites and illegally kidnapping Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wife.

This act of aggression is a imperialistic continuation of U.S. policies against the sovereign South American country with attempts to seize and plunder Venezuela’s natural resources and threatens the sovereignty of other countries in Latin America.

The aggression goes against the will of the American people and against our Constitution. Nearly 70% of Americans oppose another war and reject the endless cycle of military interventions carried out in their name.

Americans are overwhelmingly opposed to military action in Venezuela, according to a Quinnipiac poll published in mid-December amid an escalation of U.S. pressure on President Nicolás Maduro.

Sixty-three percent of respondents told Quinnipiac they are against military action against Caracas, which President Donald Trump has repeatedly declined to rule out, with just 25 percent expressing support. And 53 percent of respondents said they opposed the administration’s use of military strikes to kill alleged drug smugglers in international waters.

As domestic and international condemnations of the attack and kidnapping mount up, there are typical sycophantic expressions of support from Trumpian Republicans.

By Donna Frye

As we head into the new year, it’s time once again to let the city council know that we oppose paid parking at our beaches and Mission Bay Park for residents and non-residents alike.

Last year, four councilmembers (LaCava, Foster, Moreno and Elo-Rivera) included paid beach and bay parking in their budget priority memos as a potential revenue source.

Fortunately, on November 18, 2025 the paid parking proposal was not included as part of the council resolution being sent to the mayor’s office for consideration in preparing the FY 2027 budget.

However, as part of the annual budget cycle, the city council is required to update their budget priority memos and provide them to the Independent Budget Analyst (IBA) by January 9.

We need to make sure that the next round of budget priority memos do not include proposals for paid parking at our beaches and Mission Bay Park.

There are many reasons why paid parking at our beaches and Mission Bay Park is a bad idea.