SAN DIEGO — The last two measures we are considering before the Nov. 3 election are Proposition 24 on the State Ballot and Measure E on the City of San Diego ballot.
I personally am a believer in representative government. Complex issues, like these two measures, are best analyzed and voted upon by our councilmembers and state legislators, who have the opportunity to take testimony from legislative analysts and additionally to question other witnesses, rather than have to depend on the descriptions and arguments that appear in the official ballot pamphlets. We elect people to the City Council and to the State Legislature to make these kind of decisions. Asking voters to decide, with so few facts before them, is folly.
Nevertheless, we are faced with decisions as voters, so let’s try our best.
Proponents and opponents of Proposition 24 both say that the other side will weaken consumer’s privacy protection, not strengthen it. It’s possible, but not likely, that they are both right. According to the independent legislative analyst, current law requires businesses serving more than 50,000 customers to follow state consumer data privacy standards. This law would exempt companies that serve less than 100,000 customers. That doesn’t sound like increased consumer privacy protection at all. Additionally, according to the legislative analyst, a company collecting personal statistics under this proposal would not have to honor a request that a student’s grades be deleted from information it makes available to the public. That doesn’t sound like it’s helping the cause of consumer privacy either.
The measure creates a new state enforcement agency, taking from the California department of Justice certain responsibilities concerning consumer privacy complaints. This new agency would be empowered to propose a “wide range of new regulations,” yet the Department of Justice still would be responsible for prosecuting or deciding against prosecuting violations of these regulations. So this sounds like an agency that will have a big payroll but no teeth.
Clearly the advocates for Proposition 24 have not demonstrated how their proposal would aid the cause of consumer privacy. For that reason alone, voters should reject this proposition and tell legislators that we elected them to sort these problems out themselves.
San Diego’s Measure E asks voters throughout the entire city to vote on what the height limit should be for buildings in the Midway District around the Sports Arena. City Councilwoman Jennifer Campbell favors repeal of the 30-foot height limit for buildings in the coastal zone on the grounds that doing so could lead to redevelopment and upscaling of an area that today is dominated by strip clubs, traffic congestion, and a general sense of blight. The Midway Planning Group also unanimously endorses the proposal.
On the other hand, the Save San Diego Neighborhoods Organization and the Save Our Access Group view this proposal as the first step toward turning San Diego’s coastline into a wall of expensive high-rise condominiums such as one might see in Miami Beach or Hong Kong. For all practical purposes, the Midway District does not have a coastline; it simply falls in the area west of Interstate 5, which was defined as the boundary of the coastal zone.
I think we should listen to the people who live and work in that district and help them better their community. That’s why we recommend a Yes Vote on Measure E.
*
Donald H. Harrison is editor of San Diego Jewish World. He may be contacted via donald.harrison@sdjewishworld.com
Marcia Berneger sent in this dissenting view:
I live in the Point Loma area and I am very much opposed to raising the height limit, and there are many residents here that agree with me. Traffic in Point Loma around Midway and Rosecrans is awful! Ramps leading to the major freeways back up during lunch and especially during rush hour, often creating a 20-30 minute wait to get onto Highway 8. This time dramatically increased as the density in Point Loma increased due to the recent building of “corner lot” apartments. Raising the height limit in the Midway area allows for the addition of up to 10,000 new residents jammed into the high-rises that would be constructed there. There is NOTHING in place to accommodate the extra traffic that housing would generate. There is NOTHING in place to increase school capacities, especially at the middle and high school levels. Lines at stores would become a nightmare. Great for businesses, but not so good for customers waiting in overcrowded lines to buy groceries. This is certainly supported by businesses–and it’s easy to see why. But for us living here, it would definitely NOT improve our quality of life. There are other ways to create positive changes to the Midway area without increasing the height limit. We’re not saying to keep things the way they are. We’re just asking not to destroy what we have in the process. Measure E is not the right solution for Point Loma.
Pingback: Comprehensive list of SDJW endorsements - San Diego Jewish World