This week, I proposed a budget blueprint for San Diego in a first-of-its-kind virtual news conference. My blueprint seeks to use the challenges we currently face as a catalyst for fundamental change in the way city government serves its residents.
During and after the conference, I’ve received a few questions that deserve answers. Apologies for the length.
Simple. I’m not a politician. I’m not interested in perpetuating the status quo. This crisis is an opportunity for a new San Diego.
Long before this pandemic struck, city government was paralyzed by a special interest-driven agenda that discounted the interests of residents.
The ill-advised purchase of the 101 Ash Street building. The two-decade saga of failed convention center expansion efforts. The backroom deals leading to the unsuccessful Soccer City land grab. They all share similar histories of special interests calling the shots.
That is the old San Diego my opponent helped shape.
A new San Diego starts by framing the conversation with common-sense questions that can help get us out of the mess the politicians have put us in.
We must be careful about the way we manage our re-entry into economic activity, but we must move forward.
I praised Dianne Jacob and Greg Cox for pushing back against Governor Newsom’s plan to close the beaches statewide not only because San Diegans have generally adhered to the recommendations of public health experts, but because the risk of going backward poses the greatest risk to our physical and economic health.
SDSU has transmitted to the city a best and final offer for purchase of the Mission Valley site.
This one is easy: Stop fiddling around and get the deal done. The voters approved the terms. The city needs the revenues. And it’s a great deal for generations of San Diegans.
Here’s a recent exchange I had with Scott Lewis from VOSD:
[Y]our campaign sent out this note from Barbara Bry with this point about AB5:
The problems with AB5 and the classification of independent contractors is not the fault of hard-working Californians. The problem was created by a legislature that chose to codify a decades-old court-ruling and apply that ruling to a totally transformed economic reality.
What decades-old court ruling is she talking about? AB5 codified Dynamex which is very recent. Or am I missing something? Thanks
The Legislature has had over 100 years to clarify the employer/employee relationship. Due to the legislature's inaction, the Court has struggled to articulate a clear standard test that applies to the various circumstances of potential worker/employer relationships. The number and character of such relationships have only become more complex in the last few decades, and the legislature has still not acted.
AB5 codified the court’s decision strictly to all “employee vs. independent contractor” determinations except for a list of statutory exemptions based upon the occupation or, in some cases, the volume of work performed in a given occupation.
We need to look at places like Britain that have created a third class of workers specifically to address the nuanced relationships of the 21st century.
Finally, we’re excited that the run-off campaign is getting ready to hit the ground running. If you are interested in volunteering, hosting a virtual event, or are willing to donate, we’re ready to take on the political insiders and create a new San Diego.
Wishing you health, safety, and optimism. Hope to see you soon!
Candidate for Mayor of San Diego