Yikes, that does sound a bit creepy, but on occasion we need to reward good behavior, even if it does come from somebody like Jerry Sanders.  As Mayor of San Diego, he’s not been an overwhelming success.  However, as Lucas mentioned in his San Diego Quarterly Open Thread, Mayor Sanders announced that he will support the City Council’s decision to join the amicus brief being drafted by several CA cities in support of marriage equality.  Video here.  In a moving speech, Mayor Sanders discusses his relationship with his daughter and the painful process that brought him to support marriage equality. “The concept of a separate but equal institution is not something that I can support.”

Unsurprisingly, Sanders is getting blowback from Republicans in San Diego.

“We have all felt the betrayal of trust by the San Diego City Council and the mayor in support of gay marriage,” said Sylvia Sullivan, president of the East County chapter of the California Republican Assembly. (SD U-T 9/26/07)

So, as odious as this sounds, maybe we should be calling the Mayor’s office and voicing support. Don’t worry, you don’t have to commit to voting for him. You can email him here or get other contact info at the Mayor’s webpage.

Getting ready to kick this thing off, but surprise news arrived just an hour ago in my inbox that I wanted to pass along.  In a completely unexpected move, Republican Mayor Jerry Sanders here in San Diego has announced that he will sign the resolution passed by the city council to file a friend of the court brief in support of full marraige equality.  His full statement on the flip, updates and comments to come from local activists throughout the night.

via email:

Earlier this afternoon, I announced that I will sign the resolution that the City Council passed yesterday directing the City Attorney to file a brief in support of gay marriage. My plan, as has been reported publicly, was to veto that resolution, so I feel like I owe all San Diegans an explanation for this change of heart.

During the campaign two years ago, I announced that I did not support gay marriage and instead supported civil unions and domestic partnerships. I have personally wrestled with that position ever since. My opinion on this issue has evolved significantly – as I think have the opinions of millions of Americans from all walks of life. In order to be consistent with the position I took during the mayoral election, I intended to veto the Council resolution. As late as yesterday afternoon, that was my position.

The arrival of the resolution – to sign or veto — in my office late last night forced me to reflect and search my soul for the right thing to do. I have decided to lead with my heart – to do what I think is right – and to take a stand on behalf of equality and social justice. The right thing for me to do is to sign this resolution.

For three decades, I have worked to bring enlightenment, justice and equality to all parts of our community. As I reflected on the choices that I had before me last night, I just could not bring myself to tell an entire group of people in our community that they were less important, less worthy and less deserving of the rights and responsibilities of marriage — than anyone else — simply because of their sexual orientation. A decision to veto this resolution would have been inconsistent with the values I have embraced over the past 30 years.

I do believe that times have changed. And with changing time, and new life experiences, come different opinions. I think that’s natural, and certainly it is true in my case. Two years ago, I believed that civil unions were a fair alternative. Those beliefs, in my case, have since changed.

The concept of a “separate but equal” institution is not something that I can support.

I acknowledge that not all members of our community will agree or perhaps even understand my decision today. All I can offer them is that I am trying to do what I believe is right.

I have close family members and friends who are members of the gay and lesbian community. These folks include my daughter Lisa and her partner, as well as members of my personal staff. I want for them the same thing that we all want for our loved ones — for each of them to find a mate whom they love deeply and who loves them back; someone with whom they can grow old together and share life’s wondrous adventures. And I want their relationships to be protected equally under the law. In the end, I could not look any of them in the face and tell them that their relationships – their very lives – were any less meaningful than the marriage that I share with my wife Rana.

Thank you.

I have never been a fan of Jerry Sanders, but this is great on a number of levels.  Credit where it’s due.

“There’s a certain kind of equation that Democrats are doing,” Ducheny said. “Their concerns are that it’s Sanders and Francis and, gosh, is there anybody else?”

I first heard rumblings about this at San Diego Politico last week, and now VoiceOfSanDiego has dug into it with greater depth.  With Donna Frye demurring on another run for mayor of San Diego, Dems are looking at State Senator Denise Moreno Ducheny as a candidate for mayor next year.  She’s exciting a lot of Dems for being business-friendly in a cycle that may see Republicans split between current Mayor Jerry Sanders and 2004 candidate Steve Francis, who has become a consistent critic of Sanders.  Ducheny would have the added benefit of not being tainted by recent city-level scandals and has drawn the support of at least one high profile Democrat: City Attorney Mike Aguirre.

San Diego Democrats are facing a potentially golden electoral opportunity in 2008.  Dissatisfaction with Jerry Sanders from business Republicans has given Steve Francis a wedge with which to gain some traction on the right.  A divided Republican electorate combined with an increasingly unpopular Republican Party at the national level and the forgotten Democratic registration advantage presents a great chance for Democrats to take the mayor’s office.  The only problem so far has been figuring out who should run.  San Diego doesn’t have the deepest of benches after a generation of rising progressives was virtually wiped out by corruption and Target San Diego (pdf).  Much of the remaining Democrats in office are reliably liberal but also inextricably linked to dissatisfaction with local government over the past five years.

As the VoSD article notes, before Donna Frye, Democrats hadn’t made a serious run at the mayor’s office since 1992, and now find themselves back to starting with the opportunity and searching for a candidate.  Ducheny’s experience in Sacramento on budget matters make her particularly attractive to local Democrats in light of the city’s fiscal struggles, though there are concerns about the level of support that she would inspire from local labor, but given the thin bench after years of lackluster success at the nonpartisan level, any solution is likely to be imperfect.

Sen. Ducheny has expressed no particular hurry to make a decision in either direction, though the sooner the better by most estimations.  Jerry Sanders’ reelection campaign is set to kick off tomorrow.

As reported earlier this month by voiceofsandiego.org, Mayor Jerry Sanders’ second quarter fundraising resulted in zero dollars (pdf).  This, presumably, was at least partly to do with a perceived lack of credible challengers for next year’s mayoral race.  But after two weeks of being picked apart over his role in the illegal Sunroad project and his apparently dishonest defense, things may be changing.  The Union Tribune is reporting that Mayor Sanders’ two major challengers from last time, City Councilwoman Donna Frye and businessman Steve Francis, “champing at the bit” over the prospect of a rematch.  So what’s going on?

Sunroad Enterprises was busted for exceeding federal height limits for its development near Montgomery Field airport, and questions have been flying around town as to just who it was who let it happen.  City Attorney Mike Aguirre was one of the first out of the gate, accusing Mayor Sanders of corruption over the situation, noting that Sunroad executives played notable fundraising roles in Sanders’ election.  Sanders has vehemently defended himself against allegations of corruption, but recent revelations has called his side of things into question.  Before citing multiple discrepancies between Sanders’ explanation and official records, The Union Tribune over the weekend explained:

Memos show that then-Development Services Department director Gary Halbert, assistant director Kelly Broughton, and James Waring, the chief of land use and economic development, all knew about the problem in June 2006 – before the building had reached its halfway point.

Yet Sanders has insisted that neither he nor Waring knew about the controversy until October, when the structure had reached its full height and City Attorney Michael Aguirre was preparing to issue a stop-work order on the project.

The Mayor’s investigation into the matter was initially run by retired Navy Rear Adm. Ronne Froman, serving as the mayor’s chief operating officer.  She quit in mid-investigation, explaining “her work at City Hall was completed.”  James Waring has recently left his position either via firing, forced resignation or regular resignation depending on who you talk to.  This after his visit last week to Donna Frye, supposedly without the mayor’s knowledge, to negotiate a height compromise.  Frye went public with the attempted negotiation and Francis (Sanders’ presumptive challenger from the right) has correctly pointed out that Sanders is either lying or running an out of control office.  And neither is good.

All of this simply continues a disturbing trend for Jerry Sanders.  He has systematically set out to restrict public access and input to the city charter revision, has embraced the “strong mayor” principle after cosigning the argument against it, and has completely forfeited any credibility he might have had surrounding his pledge of an “era of openness” in San Diego government.  He has, essentially, insisted that he should be trusted because only he really understands what has to be done (kinda like a certain president).

Presumably Jerry Sanders is not going to be raising zero dollars again anytime soon.  But as his credibility starts to fade, it gives opponents a clear line of attack in a city still weary of corrupt governance.  Timed with a report that the Board of Supervisors will likely not be competitive, it looks like we can mark down at least one legitimate race in San Diego next year.

In case anyone was concerned that the wave of Republican discontent sweeping the nation was in danger of reaching every corner, witness San Diego, California.  In an excellent rundown of the problems with San Diego’s current Charter Review Committee, Progressive San Diego’s Tommie Watson assures us that insider, closed-door governance is hardly out of style in America’s Finest City:

Mayor Sander’s Charter Review Committee may give the appearance of being open to public opinion and dialogue; but it is a thinly veiled attempt by the same “good old boys” who have helped create the mess in this city to maintain their power. Everything about this committee — from poorly publicized meetings and forums, to the time they are held (Friday mornings), to Chairman John Davies edict (that only a total of 20 minutes of public non-agenda comment will be allowed at each meeting) — has helped keep the public out of this process.

And so I have to ask- Whatever happened to the Mayor’s pledge of open government?

What does the committee have to fear from public input?  What happened in the past three years that (as noted by Watson) Jerry Sanders has gone from cosigning the argument against a strong mayor government to using it to remove the public from the business of determining how their city should be run?  More to the point, how can Jerry Sanders seriously argue that he should use his strong-mayor powers to appoint a committee to determine if the office should retain its power?

Because Watson does such a great job of hitting all the relevant points, I’m just going to be riffing on his piece as I catalog everything that’s wrong with this arrangement (so please read the whole thing).  But I will say this:  Jerry Sanders has consistently put himself in opposition to the average citizen of San Diego.  Whether it’s support of neighborhood-destroying Superstores, whether it’s a resistance to funding homeless shelters, library services and cost-of-living pay raises for public servants, or it’s disproportionately targeting residents over businesses for higher utility prices or it’s his “just keep building” economic development plan, he’s just not interested in open and responsive government that serves the people.

This shouldn’t be an unfamiliar refrain.  Republicans have operated for years under the premise that the less people know, and the more convinced they can be of their own tenuous position in the world, the easier they are to control.  It doesn’t have to be this way.  Economic development can be targeting higher wages instead of higher corporate profits.  City services can be seen as an investment in a more capable workforce instead of a drain on resources.  Communities can be planned around businesses that build neighborhoods instead of simply extract profits.  Quite frankly, San Diego can be much more than a tourist destination.  But not without a government that feels its people are an asset and invites them to contribute.  Not without a government who actually wants its citizens to succeed.

A coalition of progressive San Diego organizations is working towards a “progressive platform” for San Diego that (hopefully) brings this all together and shows this community what else is out there.

Good day on Calitics all around.  Well done Calitics.  Not too much to add really, but I’ll do it anyways because that’s just what I do.

Nationally, the Pentagon is is reporting that violence is increasing in Iraq.  In other news, surge suppressors are on sale now.

At the state level, Republican infighting.  John Benoit (R-Riverside) introduced a bill to prevent candidates from simultaneously running for and raising money for both state and local office.  The culprit? Russ Bogh (R-Beaumont) who’s running for state Senate and Riverside County Board of Supervisors.  Tricky tricky…

And locally here in Sunny San Diego, Mayor Sanders has announced that he will sign the city’s $2.88 billion budget.  But oh by the way, he’s nixing funding for homeless shelters that has been at the center of budget back-and-forth all year.  The funding will be taken up again in September, and Democratic council president Scott Peters and my own councilwoman Toni Atkins are optimistic.  I’m not.  So city council, you get what you want, if by “you” one means “Mayor Sanders.”

Tonight I’m going to The Casbah to see Deep Rooted, Strange Fruit Project, and Lifesavas.  Unfortunately, you probably can’t come with me.  To ease your pain, delight: Strange Fruit Project – Pinball

“Sometimes we win big, sometimes we win small”

UPDATE by Brian: I wanted to toss a few things in this open thread:

Next year, half of San Diego’s eight city council members will be termed out, leaving open seats across town after what has been a tumultuous several years of city government.  Bribery, pension crises, “strong mayor” government, death, shady fundraising, service cuts, union strife, budget shortfalls and oh yeah- a city to run.  As the city council and the mayor continue to battle over just how much power a “strong mayor” should have, the shape of the city council is about to change in a major way.  The ramifications could dictate the fundamental course of San Diego government for quite some time.

Mayor Sanders was elected into office on a platform which called for much more power to be given to the mayor and, by extention, removed from the city council.  In the wake of the City Council missing the pension crisis and the resignations of Acting Mayor Michael Zucchet and Councilman Ralph Inzunza because of federal corruption charges, this was perhaps a natural reaction the failures of the City Council.  But in a micro version of the Bush power grab, Mayor Sanders has done everything he can to give himself complete control over the city’s budget and operation.

The city council, until recently, has been generally willing to acquiesce on these power grabs, but has begun to show some life recently.  It’s fought back over pay raises for police and fire personnel and on cuts to civic services.  It’s a toe in the water, and hopefully the beginning of better progress.  So why is this important?  Well, San Diego is the second-largest city in California, and it’s on the verge of becoming effectively autocratic.  With half the city council coming open, this is the opportunity for San Diego to decide what direction it will send its government.  For those of us who would like checks, balances, and some form of representative government, the stakes are high.  We need a city council that will keep the Mayor in control and a city council that will get San Diego on track (it is most certainly NOT currently on track).

Earlier this week, Voice of San Diego ran a great roundup of the candidates declared or mulling runs for city council districts 1 (Scott Peters), 3 (Toni Atkins), 5 (Brian Maienschein), and 7 (Jim Madaffer).  These races have already added more candidates since Monday, and the first candidate forums will be coming up later in the month.  I strongly encourage San Diegans to check the candidates and keep an eye on this.  The stakes are high and there’s tremendous opportunity to have an impact in this election for both sides.  Make sure good government wins out.

Back from Vegas with lighter pockets and ready to rock.  Turns out though that the real action is in California Indian Casinos which pulled in $25 billion last year and are growing faster than Las Vegas.  Sure, but are their prostitutes health screened?

Meanwhile, San Diego’s City Council got it right today, affirming their previous vote to ban big-box stores within the city.  Mayor Sanders is whining that it’s anti-business to ban things that are bad for business, but if the current 5-3 vote stands up, his veto is irrelevant.  Story comments are predictably ill-informed for the most part, but probably several are legitimate candidates for the U-T editorial staff.

And continuing on the “reality is whatever I tell you” road, Mayor Sanders is defending his cuts of city services by saying that funding cuts don’t mean service cuts.  He decided that firefighters didn’t deserve a cost of living raise because not enough of them were leaving, then boasted that, while opening several new branches of the library, he wasn’t reducing net hours.  Currently, the city has two fire hazard compliance officers.  I sure hope that there isn’t a really dry fire season or anything.

But anyways. I got my ticket today to see The National at the end of the month and I’m really quite delighted.  On that note (ah ha!), The National – Mistaken For Strangers

“surprise, surprise they wouldn’t wannna watch
another uninnocent, elegant fall into the unmagnificent lives of adults”

Leading off with your random news fix, the Union-Tribune today took a shot at investigative journalism. It was so pathetic that Jerry Sanders issued an email press-release/smackdown in response to a random article. If I didn’t know better, I’d smell a softball right down the middle of the plate. But no, just lameness. Journalistic standards are somewhere rolling over in a shallow grave.

So we’re talkin primaries today. Good times all around. Tonight’s song is a very strained tribute to just such a topic. Either way, the song is awesome, and the video is as close to perfect as a music video is capable of. Chemical Brothers feat. k-os – Get Yourself High.

“Insurrection is served on a 12 inch platter”

Update: I might want to include some of the mayor’s response:

With that perspective, let me now address the outstanding leases in Mission Bay Park. In a park with 28 leases, only 6 are in holdover status. These 6 leases render total revenue of $280,000 per year. Let me restate that – these leases render revenue of $280,000 per year. This amount equals approximately one-half of 1 percent of the City’s total lease revenues, and approximately 1 percent of the revenues of the leases from Mission Bay. When you compare that $280,000 to our total lease portfolio revenue of $68.4 million, you can appreciate my frustration for how horribly the paper today distorted the issue especially in light of our strategy to renegotiate the most lucrative leases first.

Sorry UT. If you wanted a story, you shoulda gone with Carol Lam, Blackwater, Trestles, Bajagua, Bilbray the lobbyist, or whatever else is simmering and waiting for you. Having a friend at the Boat and Ski Club doesn’t count as investigation. And damn you for making me side with Jerry Sanders.

As reported in the Union Tribune today and explained in an emailed press release from Mayor Jerry Sanders’ office a few minutes ago, the San Diego City Charter is under review.  A Charter Committee has been established by the Mayor, headed by John Davies and Judge James Milliken, to review what Sanders calls “a half-finished job” of switching to a strong mayor form of city government as Sanders continues his work to expand the unilateral powers of the mayor’s office.

“One of the greatest disservices that was done to our citizens last time was the rushed nature of the process,” Sanders said. “I’d like to eliminate that this time and give citizens and interested stakeholders plenty of time to reflect on the issues.”

According to the Sanders release, the committee will focus on “financial reforms; the duties of elected officials; fixes to the strong mayor system during this interim period; and considering making strong mayor permanent,” which dovetails nicely with every squabble he’s had with other officials in the city since taking office.

He’s fought with the City Council over his ability to cut entire civic programs from the budget without council review (a decision on which has been delayed by Mike Aguirre).  He’s driven out the city’s auditor by insisting that the auditor be a mouthpiece for the mayor’s office rather than an independent voice.  In short, he’s really chafed over having to fight for his strong-mayor rights.

So he’s got a committee together to figure out how to expand, extend and then make permanent the role of the Mayor as The Decider of San Diego.  The city council, if Sanders gets his way, will mostly be left as advisors and administrators of whatever the Mayor isn’t interested in dealing with.  That Sanders has promised to support any recommendations from the committee suggests either good faith, or faith in the committee he assembled to deliver the recommendations he wants.

Council President Scott Peters (“It’s…not an only-mayor form of government”) has declined to commit blindly to the recommendations of the committee, but sounds supportive of strengthening the mayor, hoping for “ideas to finish the job” of transitioning to a new form of city governance.  Doesn’t exactly sound like he’s ready for a fight.  Councilwoman Donna Frye has fought well against Sanders over the budget cuts, but since the committee will also consider changing the number of seats on the city council and the number of votes required to override a mayoral veto, she could find her power to slow down the Sanders power grab severely curtailed.

It boils down to Sanders establishing a committee to conclude that he should have more power and people shouldn’t be able to get in his way.  The perceived mandate from voters in support of the “strong mayor” form of government is checking too many members of the city council, clearing the road for Sanders to seize unilateral control of the city government.  Sanders said in his press release that he “will of course ask the Committee to comply with the Brown Act and ask that the public participate in the Committee’s work.”  I strongly recommend that people in San Diego take advantage of the opportunity to participate.  If you thought San Diego was corrupt and mismanaged before, just wait until it’s a mayoral fiefdom.  Head it off while there’s still time.