Name: Stephen Whitburn

Age: 44

Occupation: Spokesperson, American Red Cross of San Diego

Notable: Elected member, North Park Planning Committee; past president of the San Diego Democratic Club

Gay & Lesbian Times: You’ve run a campaign on a platform of addressing issues in our neighborhoods and open government – more specifically you’ve addressed affordable housing, development, infrastructure and public safety. Let’s discuss each of those issues. First, what will you do to create more affordable housing in District 3?

Stephen Whitburn: I serve on the North Park Planning Committee and just this past week there was a proposal before the committee to create a new affordable housing complex on Florida Street just south of University Avenue. And, there had been some neighborhood issues surrounding the proposal; neighbors voiced concerns that were in line with concerns you’d have over any large development. But, the proponents of affordable housing and the neighbors got together and talked through the various concerns and worked on solutions, and the committee I sit on approved the project unanimously. Those are exactly the sorts of outcomes I will work toward as a councilmember; getting the neighborhoods together with the developers or whoever the proponents are who want to add something new to a neighborhood, and finding something that, essentially, works well for everyone. I am really pleased with the outcome of that project, and that will be my approach as a councilmember.

District 3 needs more affordable housing and that takes several forms: designated affordable housing geared toward low-income families, or seniors or LGBT seniors who need more affordable housing, and it also takes the form of having enough good apartment complexes. There has been a wave of condominium conversions. Many apartments in District 3 have been converted to condos, and many people can afford an apartment, but cannot afford a mortgage payment, not even an inexpensive one.

We need apartments and we need entry-level condos for people who want to get into the housing market, and we need areas that consist of primarily single family homes – we need a mix of housing options for our very diverse population. So, as a councilmember, I will work closely with the affordable housing community to look for new opportunities to create and protect affordable housing.

Also, I think affordable housing is especially effective along transportation corridors, so people have easy access to public transit. El Cajon Boulevard is a good example of an area that has the infrastructure, in terms of public transit, to accommodate affordable housing.

This past week was the first time in my experience on the North Park Planning Committee where we had this sort of conflict, and where neighbors had very real concerns like traffic and noise and the kinds of concerns neighborhoods have at times with any unit – affordable housing or not. But the North Park Planning Committee and I, personally, are committed to creating more affordable housing, and to responding to neighborhood concerns; they are both very important.

City government should work on behalf of the people who live in the neighborhoods, so I think we have to find solutions agreeable to everyone. We have a solution here, with the North Park Planning Committee, where the affordable housing unit will be built, and I think the neighborhood is content with the proposal. We were able to move that forward, and that is a good thing.

GLT: You publicly opposed the initial proposal for development at 301 University Ave. What is your take on the new proposal? Also, list a few other development projects in District 3 you oppose, or support.

SW: 301 University, when it was proposed the first time around, was put forward as a massive project that many people in the neighborhood felt was out of scale with the rest of the neighborhood, out of character with the rest of the neighborhood and added significantly to an already difficult traffic situation; it also would have cast shadows on nearby businesses and residences. It was very clear the neighborhood wanted no part of it.

Neighborhoods must be listened to. They have been ignored for too long in San Diego. This neighborhood clearly did not want the 301 University project, and I stood with the neighborhood. Ultimately, the City Council approved it, which I thought was wrong.

Councilmember Donna Frye, who has endorsed me, was the only councilmember who stood with the neighborhood, and I applaud her for that. It went before a judge, who ruled there had to be a full review of the environmental impact and ordered that to be done. Months later, the developers came forward with a new proposal saying, because it was a new proposal, it didn’t have to go through the environmental impact statement that was required for the previous proposal. And the new proposal was for not one but two buildings – and they were even taller than the first one. Not only that, the city staff said the project didn’t need to go through a public hearing and that the permit could be approved by staff without any review. I just thought that was outrageous. The neighborhood was clearly opposed to the first incarnation, and now the city was coming back, saying, “Here’s a new project and it’s even bigger, and we’re not even going to take into consideration what the neighborhood says about it.” That’s wrong. City government is there to work on behalf of the people. I was perfectly clear that I opposed the new project and I has a news conference expressing not only my, but many other peoples’, outrage that, one, the developer came back with such an in your face proposal and; two, the city staff would suggest going forward without the neighborhood’s input.

Ultimately, I hear now, the developer is coming back with yet another proposal, which has been considerably down-stated and which may be a better fit for the neighborhood. We’ll see what the neighborhood thinks about it.

In terms of other developments, I took a strong stand against the proposed Kensington Terrace project; again, because more than 1,000 residents in those neighborhoods voiced grave concerns about the scale of the project, the amount of traffic it would generate, concerns about potentially historic homes that would be destroyed, and the precedent it would set for future developments along Adams Avenue. I was the only one of the two District 3 candidates to stand with the neighborhood on that issue. In that case, again, what ultimately happened was the neighborhood and the developer sat down and eventually hammered out a compromise that everybody could live with. That wouldn’t have happened if that neighborhood hadn’t stood up and made its concerns clear, and if the neighborhood hadn’t had strong support. I’m proud of that neighborhood, and I’m proud of the fact I took a stand with them. We were able to fashion a compromise that worked well for everyone. Those, again, are the kinds of outcomes I’ll pursue as a councilmember.

I support, obviously, the new affordable housing complex on Florida Street, south of University Avenue, because it’s going to create much-needed affordable housing in District 3 right at the border of Hillcrest and North Park. In that case, the developer and the neighborhood came together and talked through the concerns that the neighborhood had and many of those concerns have been addressed. A couple of the remaining concerns – traffic, parking – will be taken up during the design process before the project gets the final approval. That’s the right way to go.

GLT: What will you do to fund improvements for aging infrastructure in District 3?

SW: There are a number of funding mechanisms that we can pursue to fix our streets and sidewalks and replace old sewer and wastewater piping. We need to explore passing an infrastructure bond. That is a commonly used source of funding in cities across the country and it has been employed in San Diego. It’s a common sense way of attracting the revenues needed to fix our aging infrastructure that will benefit not only our generation but the next generation as well. Because of our city’s recent financial mismanagement, we have not been in the bond market or able to pursue an infrastructure bond until recently. Now that the city’s finances are somewhat more stable we can explore an infrastructure bond soon. It’s very much needed.

We need to update developer impact fees. Those fees are charged to developers for each unit built and those fees cover the infrastructure impacts of new developments – they pay to have sidewalks repaired, new fire stations built, for parks, etc. Developer impact fees in this part of town have not been updated in more than 20 years, in some cases. In Del Mar Heights, for example, the developer impact fee exceeds $60,000; in North Park, it’s $4,000. Even the developers will readily admit this needs to be updated, and those fees are another source of revenue to pay for infrastructure.

Also, I believe that the Centre City Development Corporation, the CCDC, which is sitting on a pot of money in the millions of dollars, should take over the bond payments for the Downtown convention center and the Downtown ballpark. If it does that, it frees up more money in the city’s general fund for things like street and sidewalk repairs, public safety and a myriad of other services and programs the city needs to fund. We’re paying a lot of taxes in the city, and the city has not done a very good job of making sure our tax dollars are directed to the basic city services that will improve the quality of life of the people who live in the neighborhoods.

GLT: What will you do to increase public safety patrols, and make residents in District 3 more safe?

SW: District 3 had more robberies and more home burglaries that any other district in the city for the period of September 2007 through August 2008. That’s the latest month those figures were made available for. We also had five more murders in our district than we had in the same period last year. If you don’t feel safe in your own neighborhood or in your home, what else matters? Public safety has to be the top priority. We need more police officers on this beat. We need to restore community relations officers, because they get to know the individual neighborhoods best. We need to reopen shuttered police door fronts that give people close access to police officers in their area. We need to add lighting to many streets and alleys in our neighborhoods. There are streets where it gets very dark between street lights and in some cases feels very dangerous. There are alleyways that are completely unlit and those are breeding grounds for crimes and a myriad of other problems. We need to step up our street light program, and we need to initiate an alley light program. We need to beef up our city’s specialized crime units – the gang task force, the homeless outreach team, the vice squad, the task force that addresses prostitution. Those things take money, but we need to do a better job of directing money to the very basic, critically important services the city is there to provide.

As a councilmember I will stand up for the basic city services our residents need and deserve. The mayor has proposed cuts across the board. Instead, we should be taking the money we do have and redirecting them toward more city services. If CCDC takes over bond payments on the convention center and the Downtown ballpark, we will have more money in our general fund for police officers; and, if we pass an infrastructure bond to pay for infrastructure, we’ll have more money in our general fund for police officers in our districts.

If we stop letting the Southern Economic Development Council and other agencies give improper bonuses and if we stop politicians from cutting sweetheart deals to lobbyists and special interests, we’ll have more money to put police on the streets. There has been a good ol’ boys network in this city for too many decades and people in power have feathered their own nests at the expense of people in the neighborhoods. It’s time our city’s top priority, its time and our tax dollars be for the benefit of the people who live in our neighborhoods.

GLT: Let’s discuss open government. Has the city, thus far, failed to operate in a transparent manner, and where has that led us? Also, is city government more transparent now with the new strong mayor form of government?

SW: I was a journalist for 18 years. I’m passionate about open and honest government. I think that everything that we want from our city flows from having open and honest government and more public participation. We have had the opposite in San Diego for too many years. There have been backroom deals, a lack of accountability, a lack of oversight and a few people in power have benefited, but most of us have suffered. We’ve suffered because our streets and sidewalks have gone unfixed, because we’ve had fewer officers on our streets and because our libraries have lost staff and cut hours. An example of the good ol’ boys network we’ve seen: the recent scandals with the CCDC and the SEDC. Downtown needed redevelopment and Southeast San Diego still needs redevelopment – but to grease the wheels of developers, the city created too many quasi-public, nonprofit corporations that operate outside the normal process for review, oversight and accountability. When you set up agencies outside public accountability you invite corruption and it’s no surprise we got it. I have called for an end to that. I had a news conference a few weeks ago calling for the city to dissolve CCDC and SEDC back under the main redevelopment agency, which is accountable to the City Council, which provides better oversight and public participation in redevelopment projects.

There have been reasons for optimism and reasons for concern. Councilmembers Frye and [Toni] Atkins very visibly called upon the City Council to hold fewer closed-session meetings a few years ago. The result has been more meetings held in the open, so there has been progress on that front, which I applaud.

Specific to the strong mayor form of government, the mayor [Jerry Sanders] in the last year has tried to consolidate more power in his office and last year sought the authority to make mid-year budget cuts without a public hearing, which I thought was wrong. I testified against it four times because I believe the public always has the right to be heard on issues that affect them. The mayor wanted to be able to cut $100,000 from a youth swimming program without council approval or public hearing. In the scheme of the city’s billion-dollar budget, $100,000 may not seem like a lot, but let me tell you, to the parents of those kids who were taking advantage of that program – that opportunity for recreation, that opportunity to grow – that program was a really big deal and those parents and those kids deserve to be heard and to express how important the program was to their lives. There’s no reason why, if the mayor wants to propose budget cuts, which he has the right to do, we can’t give it a month to allow those who would be affected by the cut to share with the council and the mayor’s office why they think the program should be continued. A difficult decision may ultimately have to be made, but decisions are better made and informed if we hear from all parties affected and certainly from the citizens.

GLT: Rate the mayor and the city council’s performance on a scale of one to 10 – one being a poor performance score, 10 being an outstanding performance score – under the strong mayor form of government? Where has the mayor and council succeeded and where have they failed?

SW: Coming up with a number is hard to do on the spot, but if I have to, I suppose I’d give the mayor a four. I think my concerns are that he has tried to consolidate power in his office at the expense of the legislative branch, which is the City Council, and at the expense of the citizenry, which has every right to have its views heard before the City Council. I think I also am concerned that he has been too reluctant to draw funds away from the development interests and redirect them to basic city services, like public safety and streets and sidewalks.

Certainly I think all of us were pleased that he signed the resolution that enabled the city to go on record in favor of marriage equality. That was important. I think that his actions and the City Council’s actions sent a real message about bipartisan support for equal rights. Also, I find him to be a likeable guy in person. But, there is still some of the good ol’ boys network there, and I think we need to get our city government focused less on developers and special interests and more on the people who live in our neighborhoods.

As a unit, I’d give the City Council a four as well. I think it has failed to stand up for itself and insist the mayor recognize that the voters approved a strong-mayor/strong-council form of government, and that a strong legislative branch is just as important as a strong executive branch.

I think the City Council has not sided with neighborhoods on redevelopment issues. They approved 301 University, they approved Kensington Terrace. The City Council has continued to side with big developers and special interests time and time again. But, like the mayor, there have been bright spots. Specifically, when the council went on record in favor of marriage equality; it also passed a living wage ordinance recently, and voted to more strongly enforce it.

The councilmember who has really stood up for neighborhoods, I’d say, is Donna Frye. She does her homework. She listens to what people have to say and what the citizens have to say, and she votes her conscience every time, whether you agree with her or not. You know she stands up for what she believes in. People respect her for that. I respect her for that. I’m honored she has endorsed me because she knows I will always stand up for what I believe. I will vote my conscience and be responsible only to the citizens who I represent.

GLT: Back to development for a moment: In light of economic and public safety concerns, what would you propose for the Navy Broadway Complex, and how will the future City Council work with the Centre City Development Corporation and the U.S. Navy to determine plans for the site?

SW: Well, hopefully CCDC will be dissolved into the main redevelopment agency and the city will work with the Navy on that project. You know, the Navy has a long and storied history of being an integral part of the fabric of San Diego. And I’m sure the Navy is eager to have a headquarters and a surrounding development that not only serves the Navy’s needs, but is also an asset to the city’s needs. We need to partner with the Navy to accomplish that. The current proposal for the Navy Broadway Complex, as proposed by Doug Manchester, is clearly not the way to go. There are security concerns. There are seismic concerns, because there may be a fault line beneath the site. The environmental analysis was conducted in the early ’90s and a lot has changed since then, and we need to take another hard look at it.

Whatever is done should provide continued high-quality access to the waterfront for our citizens. And it needs to be done in a way that is not going to add traffic problems or a public safety burden.

GLT: City Attorney Michael Aguirre was praised in the Wall Street Journal for his work on an appeal that would roll back pension benefits illegally granted to city employees. Do you think Aguirre’s appeal is a good use of taxpayer dollars, and do you think he’ll succeed at overturning the pension benefits?

SW: Mike Aguirre has not been shy about taking on the good ol’ boys network at City Hall. We need people who are willing to stand up to the entrenched interests and fight on behalf of the people. At the same time, I do think that when workers sign a contract with the city, a deal is a deal. I think there were a lot of problems with the way that deal was arranged. I share many of Mike Aguirre’s concerns about the process that led to those deals. But, I have a hard time looking a worker in the face and telling that worker that the contract he or she signed and agreed to, and perhaps made concessions to agree to, and perhaps has based his or her retirement on – I have a hard time going back to that worker now and saying that we’re not going to live up to the contract we signed.

I am neither a judge nor do I … I wouldn’t even venture a guess as to how the courts will interpret the law on this one.

GLT: Aguirre has now secured the endorsement of the local Democratic party and the San Diego Democratic Club, both of which have endorsed you. Simple question: Will you vote for Aguirre or his opponent Jan Goldsmith in the city attorney’s race?

SW: I’ll vote for Mike Aguirre. Jan Goldsmith is not only a conservative Republican, he worked very hard in support of Proposition 22, which denied gay and lesbian couples the right to marry. We have had to fight so hard for our rights, in part because of Jan Goldsmith and people like him who have fought on the other side to prevent us from having rights. Jan Goldsmith does not deserve our community’s vote under any circumstances.

GLT: In terms of campaign finance, you and your opponent have faced intense scrutiny. First, let’s discuss the critique on your opponent. Todd Gloria has been slammed for taking, roughly, tens of thousands of dollars from developers, and has been criticized for accepting a $100 donation from Perry Dealy, former president of the Manchester Financial Group. Are concerns regarding development dollars in Todd’s campaign warranted? And, should the candidate have rejected the contribution from Dealy?

SW: I think the question is: why have so many developers contributed so much money to his campaign? Five members of the McMillin family, one of the biggest developers in San Diego, have contributed the maximum to his campaign. I think 10 or 11 members of the Baldwin family, who live in Orange County but have business projects and big development projects in San Diego, have contributed to his campaign. Four board members of the CCDC have contributed to his campaign. More than 20 registered lobbyists have contributed to his campaign – that’s more than any City Council candidate of any party in the city. Why are so many developers and so many lobbyists contributing so much money to his campaign? We have had a City Council that many people feel has been overly influenced by developers and lobbyists for decades in San Diego and the citizens and our neighborhoods have suffered.

People know I will not be influenced by developers or lobbyists. My support in this campaign has come from the Democratic Party, the Sierra Club, the National Organization for Women, progressive LGBT organizations and others who want change at City Hall. They don’t want more of the same kind of City Council that serves the special interests. They want a City Council member who stands up for the people in our neighborhoods. I will be that councilmember.

I would not have accepted a contribution from anybody associated with Douglas Manchester and his development company, who has helped fund the attack on our LGBT community’s civil rights.

GLT: Now, let’s discuss the criticism you’ve faced for loaning your campaign nearly $200,000. Some have said it’s an attempt to buy your election. Others have questioned where the money has come from. Address those concerns for voters.

SW: I find it perplexing that anyone would suggest that … let me go back. Todd’s campaign has spent more on this race than my campaign. My campaign isn’t spending as much as his. The developers and the lobbyists are not writing me checks. A campaign is expensive. I have had to fight to ensure that we have the resources to let people know what this campaign stands for: good government and a city council that works for the people. That is very important to me. I have been humbled by the many hundreds of good people who have contributed to this campaign. I have asked people to dig as deeply as they can to support what we believe in – and I expect nothing less from myself. I have dug as deep as I can to support this campaign as well. I have been fortunate to have been able to save some money over the past 25 years of working. I have always had a middle-class income, but I drive a 17-year-old car; I don’t have a car payment. I rent an apartment so I don’t have a mortgage. I have been able to set aside money little by little for something that is very important to me, and because of that, nobody is going to own Stephen Whitburn – except me, and the people I’m elected to represent. I’ll be nobody’s councilmember but the people’s.

GLT: In the days leading up to the election, undecided voters will be tasked with choosing a qualified candidate to represent District 3. They will have two names on the ballot. Why are you more qualified than your opponent, Todd Gloria, to represent District 3 on the San Diego City Council?

SW: I would point to three areas: my experience, my endorsements and my status as an outsider. I am the one candidate in this race with real-world private sector experience. I’m the one candidate with professional nonprofit experience. I think that those experiences and that breadth of background will serve me well dealing with not only the public sector and the private sector, but the nonprofit sector too, to make San Diego an even better place. I have lived in different cities and covered city government as a journalist in different cities. I understand city issues. I’ve seen government work well and I’ve seen it work poorly, and I bring that knowledge and those different perspectives to this job. I’m the only candidate in this race endorsed by the Democratic Party. They looked at both of us, asked us both tough questions, and I was honored to earn the Democratic Party’s support. The San Diego Democratic Club, which advocates for LGBT equality, has endorsed my campaign. The National Organization for Women has endorsed my campaign. The Stonewall Young Democrats has endorsed my campaign. The Sierra Club, the Mexican American Political Association, the Neighborhood Leaders Alliance, Progressive San Diego – these are all organizations that share my view that we need to change City Hall and make it work for the people. Lastly, I am clearly the outsider in this race, much like Donna Frye when she ran for City Council. I am not the establishment candidate. I think the establishment has not served the citizens well in San Diego. It’s time to stand up to the establishment and demand our tax dollars and our city’s priorities be focused on improving quality of life for people who live in our neighborhoods. I will do that.