My top priority is fixing city finances, restoring services, repairing our roads and getting San Diegans back to work with job creation. I’ll bring people together. As mayor, I will lead by example and create the most open and transparent city government in the nation. I’ll always take a balanced approach.
The city continues to fall behind each year on regular maintenance of our roads and infrastructure. The incoming mayor will need to catch up on backlogged infrastructure maintenance estimated at $900 million and cut through regulatory red tape that has stifled economic development and business growth in our city. For too many years city politicians have glossed over the staggering amount of our infrastructure deficit, commonly referred to as “deferred maintenance.” I have a plan that will bring an additional $470 million to infrastructure repairs over five years.
I am proud to have the support of two great San Diegans who come from different political parties but both share a love of San Diego as we all do: Mayor Jerry Sanders and Irwin Jacobs. I welcome all Democrats, independents and Republicans to join and support my campaign for Mayor.
On Tuesday, Nov. 6, I would appreciate your vote.
We need solutions to move our city forward, not political agendas, endless lawsuits and political standoffs.
I will make city government work for all San Diegans — not just developers and other special interests — rebuilding aging infrastructure in our neighborhoods and restoring basic city services.
• I will create good-paying jobs by making San Diego an alternative energy leader, expanding our port into a maritime center and building an innovation-based economy for the 21st century.
• I will improve our schools so every child has the chance for a quality education and the skills to compete in a global economy.
• I am the candidate you can trust to protect our coastline, preserve our canyons and keep our neighborhoods safe. That’s why police officers and firefighters support me.
• I will deliver on the promise of pension reform, reducing costs to taxpayers immediately and eliminating six-figure pension abuses in the future.
I have lived in San Diego for four decades, raised my children here and taught at SDSU. As San Diego School Board president, I eliminated millions in bureaucratic waste. As chairman of the Veterans Committee in Congress, I improved healthcare and education for our nation’s veterans.
DISTRICT 1 CITY COUNCIL CANDIDATE STATEMENTS
As your councilmember, I will focus on restoring community services. I strongly support pension reform and will solve the pension issue. I will get San Diego’s fiscal house in order so that we can bring back library hours, restore neighborhood parks and fix the potholed streets in our community.
I’m a 53-year resident of San Diego, UCSD graduate and professional engineer who raised my family in La Jolla, built a small business with my husband and served as a long-time volunteer community leader.
Since being elected to City Council in 2008, I have made critical reforms to city pensions and retiree healthcare and implemented managed competition, saving taxpayers over a billion dollars. I also cut my pay by 9 percent and my staff's by 6 percent.
As a result, our city has been able to balance its budget and achieve a surplus while other cities are still struggling.
I have stood up for our neighborhoods by implementing the largest street resurfacing project in the city’s history, including over 35 miles in District 1. I also restored lifeguards and fire engines, added police and firefighters, increased hours at libraries and recreation centers and restored beach fire pits.
I have protected our neighborhoods against overdevelopment, developed a new water policy to guarantee our city has a reliable and affordable water supply for our future, and worked to cut red tape, create good jobs and provide an economic development strategy for our future.
Please support me so I can continue working for you.
Shall San Diego Unified School District issue $2.8 billion in bonds at legal interest rates with citizens’ oversight, independent financial audits, no money for administrators’ salaries and all funds spent locally?
Prop. Z would repair to neighborhood and charter schools with funding the state cannot take away by addressing: repairs to classrooms, libraries, wiring plumbing, bathrooms and leaky roofs; removal of hazardous mold, asbestos and lead; upgrades to fire-safety systems; and upgrades to classroom technology, labs and vocational education classrooms. Voter approval of this measure also will authorize an annual tax to be levied upon the taxable property within the District. The interest rate on any bond, which is established at the time of bond issuance, cannot exceed 12 percent.
Should the California Constitution be amended to (a) temporarily increase sales and personal income tax rates; (b) guarantee certain revenue transfers to local governments; and (c) eliminate state funding of certain mandates to local governments?
Prop. 30 is a Constitutional Amendment that seeks to fund the budget shortfall by temporarily raising the sales tax and income tax.
It increases personal income tax on annual earning over $250,000 for seven years, as well as sales and use tax by a quarter of a cent for four years. It allocates temporary tax revenues to K-12 schools and community colleges, barring the use of funds for administrative costs but allowing school governing boards the chance to decide how funds are spent. It also guarantees funding for public safety services realigned from to state to local governments.
Arguments for Prop. 30: After years of cuts to schools and public safety, it’s time to take a stand. Prop. 30 asks the wealthiest to temporarily pay more to prevent deep school cuts, provide billions in new education funding, guarantee local public safety and help balance the state budget.
Supporters: Gov. Jerry Brown, California Democratic Party, California Federation of Teachers, California Teachers Association, California Police Chiefs Association, California School Employees Association, California State Council of Service Employees, California State Sheriffs’ Association, League of Women Voters of California, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, California Nurses Association, Laborers International Union of North America, United Domestic Workers of America, Coca-Cola Company
Arguments against Prop. 30:
$50 billion in higher sales and income taxes, but no guarantee of additional money for schools. Prop. 30 doesn’t reform schools, pensions or cut waste and bureaucracy. We’ll never know where the money really goes.
Opponents: Tom Bogetich, former executive director, California State Board of Education; California Republican Party; Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association; Doug Boyd, Member, L.A. County Board of Education; National Federation of Independent Business/California; Small Business Action Committee; Sacramento Taxpayers Association
Should unions, corporations, government contractors and state and local government employers be prohibited from using payroll-deducted funds, or in some instances their own funds, for political expenditures?
Prop. 32 prohibits unions from using payroll-deducted funds for political purposes. It permits voluntary employee contributions to employer-sponsored committees or unions. It applies to corporations, labor unions, government contractors and state and local government employers. Other entities, such as limited liability companies, limited partnerships, real estate trusts, “Super PACs” and independent expenditure committees would not be subject to its provisions.
Arguments for Prop. 32: Prop. 32 cuts the money tie between special interests and politicians to the full extent constitutionally allowed. It bans contributions from corporations and unions to politicians. It prohibits contributions from government contractors and stops payroll withholding for politics, making all contributions voluntary.
Supporters: Gloria Romero, state director, Democrats for Education Reform; Citizens for California Reform; National Federation of Independent Business — California; Marian Bergeson, former California secretary of education; Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association; Hon. John Arguell-es, California Supreme Court justice (retired); George Shultz, former U.S. secretary of state; Richard Riordan, former mayor of Los Angeles; Charles T. Munger, Jr.; Thomas M. Siebel; Citizen Power Campaign; Lincoln Club of Orange
Arguments against Prop. 32:
Prop. 32 isn’t reform — it exempts business Super PACs and thousands of big businesses from its provisions, at the same time applying restrictions on working people and their unions. It’s unfair, unbalanced and won’t take money out of politics. The League of Women Voters urges a no vote.
Opponents: League of Women Voters of California; California Common Cause; Dan Stanford, former chairman, California Fair Political Practices Commission; California Clean Money Campaign; California Democratic Party; Robbie Hunter, executive secretary, Los Angeles/Orange County Building and Construction Trades Council; John A. Pérez, speaker of the Assembly; California Teachers Association; Service Employees International Union; California Professional Firefighters; American Federation of State County & Municipal Employees; California Labor Federation; California School Employees Association; Peace Officers Research Association of California; California Faculty Association; American Federation of Teachers; Professional Engineers in California Government
Should labeling be required on foods containing genetically modified ingredients when such foods (whether raw or processed, plant or animal) are offered for sale to consumers in California?
Prop. 37 would require labeling on raw or processed food offered for sale to consumers if it is made from plants or animals with genetic material changed in specified ways. It prohibits labeling or advertising such food, or other processed food, as “natural.” It exempts foods that are: certified organic; unintentionally produced with genetically engineered material; made from animals fed or injected with genetically engineered material but not genetically engineered themselves; processed with or containing only small amounts of genetically engineered ingredients; administered for treatment of medical conditions; sold for immediate consumption such as in a restaurant; or alcoholic beverages.
Arguments for Prop. 37: Proposition 37 gives us the right to know what is in the food we eat and feed to our families. It simply requires labeling of food produced using genetic engineering, so we can choose whether to buy those products or not. We have a right to know.
Supporters: Consumer Watchdog; Swanton Berry Farm; Pesticide Action Network; Michelle Perro, pediatrician; Center for Food Safety; Lundberg Family Farms; Barbara Boxer, U.S. senator, California; U.S. Congress members Maxine Waters, Dennis Kucinich and Howard Berman; California state Sen. Mark Leno; United Farm Workers; Sierra Club; California Certified Organic Farmers; Consumer Federation of America; Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine; California Labor Federation; Mercola.com Health Resources LLC; Nature’s Path Foods U.S.A. Inc. Fine Natural Food Products; Organic Consumer Organizations’ Committee for the Right to Know About GMOs; Dr. Bronner’s Magic Soaps All-One-God-Faith Inc.; Amy’s Kitchen; Alex Bogusky; Organic Consumers Association; Annie’s, Inc.; Michael S. Funk
Arguments against Prop. 37:
Prop. 37 is a deceptive, deeply flawed food labeling scheme, full of special-interest exemptions and loopholes. Prop. 37 would create new government bureaucracy costing taxpayers millions, authorize expensive shakedown lawsuits against farmers and small businesses, and increase family grocery bills by hundreds of dollars per year.
Opponents: California Farm Bureau Federation; Dr. Henry I. Miller, founding director, Office of Biotechnology of the FDA; California Taxpayer Protection Committee; Dr. Bob Goldberg, member, National Academy of Sciences; Jamie Johansson, California family farmer; California Small Business Association; Monsanto; PepsiCo; General Mills; Coca-Cola; DuPont Pioneer; ConAgra Foods; California Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse; California Grocers Association; California Chamber of Commerce; BASF Plant Science; Bayer CropScience; Dow Agrosciences LLC; Nestlé USA, Inc.; Syngenta Corporation
Should California’s personal income-tax rates be increased during 2013-24 to provide funds for public schools, early childhood education programs and state debt payments?
Prop. 38 increases personal income tax rates on annual earnings over $7,316 using sliding scale from 0.4 percent for the lowest individual earners to 2.2 percent for individuals earning over $2.5 million, for 12 years. During its first four years, it allocates 60 percent of revenues to K-12 schools, 30 percent to repaying state debt and 10 percent to early childhood programs. Thereafter, Prop. 38 allocates 85 percent of revenues to K-12 schools, 15 percent to early childhood programs. It provides K-12 funds on school-specific, per-pupil basis, subject to local control, audits and public input.
Arguments for Prop. 38: Proposition 38 makes schools a priority again. It guarantees new funding per pupil direct to every local public school site to restore budget cuts and improve educational results. It prohibits Sacramento politicians from touching the money. Spending decisions are made locally with community input and strong accountability requirements, including independent audits.
Supporters: California State Parent Teacher Association; Education Trust-West; Ceila Jaffe, president, 4th District PTA, Orange County; Alex Kajitani, 2009 California Teacher of the Year; Molly Munger, litigator and political activist; Edward James Olmos, actor; Tina Repetti-Renzullo, 2010-11 Los Angeles County Teacher of the Year; Atlas Family Trust; Steven Grand-Jean; Leslie Walker
Arguments against Prop. 38: If you earn $17,346 per year in taxable income, your taxes increase. There is a total of $120 billion in higher taxes. Prop. 38 includes no requirements to improve student performance, and it can’t be changed for 12 years, even for fraud. It damages small business and kills jobs. Educators, taxpayers and businesses say no on 38.
Opponents: California Chamber of Commerce; California Democratic Party; California Republican Party; California State Sheriffs’ Association; California Taxpayer Protection Committee; San Diego Tax Fighters; Ken Williams, member, Orange County Board of Education; Andrew Wong, member, Pomona Unified School District, Board of Education; California Medical Association
* Note: Props 30 and 38 contain conflicting tax-increase provisions. The Constitution specifies that, if two conflicting measures both pass, the one with the most votes will go into effect where it conflicts with the one that receives the lesser number of votes, but that any provisions in the latter that don’t conflict with the winning proposition will still go into effect. If both Prop. 30 and Prop. 38 pass, the propositions specify the following: If Prop. 30 passes with a greater number of votes, nothing in Prop. 38 would go into effect. If Prop. 38 passes with a greater number of votes, the tax-increase provisions of Prop. 30 would not go into effect. In that event, any provisions of Prop. 30 not related to tax increases would still go into effect, such as the “trigger cuts” to expenditures.
— Information taken from www.smartvoter.org. Visit the website for a full rundown of propositions and candidates on the Nov. 6 ballot.