Dear Editor:

I think the disappointment that some, perhaps many, of us feel about Toni Atkins is magnified by the fact that politics at every level throughout this decade has been a dysfunctional, misguided mess. Nationally, the Republicans have led us on a course to disaster, while the Democrats have not offered a coherent alternative. The state government is in a state of perpetual deadlock. And we all know how our city government, which is the smallest and therefore likely to be the best managed, has failed to deal honestly and openly with its financial situation.

In this light, we’re less likely to forgive Atkins’ role, especially when couched in politicians’ traditional, don’t-blame-me, passive voice (“mistakes were made”). On the one hand, Atkins has appeared to be a selfless hard worker, and I have benefited from some of her decisions. On the other hand, she has consistently voted with the City Council majority on a series of disastrous 7-1 and 8-1 votes, leaving Donna Frye out to dry as the government’s only watchdog, along with Mike Aguiire. This string of votes suggests that Atkins, like too many other politicians, plays the game of “go along to get along” with her colleagues.

And her recommendation to build the 12-story monstrosity at 301 University, despite its burden on neighborhood streets and the destruction of neighborhood character, tells us once again that what developers want, they get, with the connivance of their friends in City Hall. We had hoped that Toni could remain a shining light among politicians. In light of her actions, our cynicism about the virtues of representative government at every level can only deepen.

John Kroll

See www.gaylesbiantimes.com/?id=8106

Dear Editor:

I am incredibly disappointed with your decision to endorse Proposition C on the November 7 ballot in the city of San Diego. The simple fact is that privatization of city services is bad news all around: bad for the workers who actually provide the services and bad for the taxpayers who rely on them.

Privatization usually works this way: a private company lobbies a city with extravagant promises that due to the magical “efficiency” of the private sector, they can provide a service at a far lower price than the public employees doing it now. Often the offer is accompanied by strategically placed campaign contributions to elected decision-makers just to buy “access” and make the deal look sweeter to them. Once the company actually gets the contract, either its services turn out to be more expensive and inferior — if you don’t believe me, ask the citizens of Atlanta, who started seeing a brown substance come out of their water taps instead of the clear fluid they were used to after the city privatized its water supply — or it makes its profit margin by the only way it can other than degrading services: by slashing the salaries of its employees.

All too often, once a city service is privatized, the people actually working to deliver it are the same people who did so when it was publicly owned and managed — only they’re working at lower pay, with fewer (or no) benefits and no pensions. Indeed, Mayor Sanders’ advocacy of Proposition C suggests that his long-term “solution” to the city’s pension problem is just that: get all the city workers off the public payroll and rehire them as contractees of private firms, thus cutting back the city’s pension obligations by ensuring that the newly privatized workers get no pensions at all, either from the city or their new “private” employer.

You seem to have been swayed by Mike Aguirre’s endorsement of Proposition C. I have a great deal of respect for Aguirre, too, but he’s been wrong before about local ballot measures — notably an earlier Proposition C from 1998, the authorization for the San Diego Padres’ downtown ballpark under a financing scheme so lopsided in favor of the Padres that it would have bankrupted the city if the out-of-control pensions hadn’t done so first. To his credit, Aguirre has since admitted he was wrong and I was right about 1998’s Proposition C, and I say he’s wrong this time too.

Mark Gabrish Conlan

See www.gaylesbiantimes.com/?id=8456

Dear Editor:

Toni Atkins will be termed out of office in the next two year! Is she job shopping? One would think so after looking at her decision on the 301 University development project.

A strong leader always seeks other advice, not relying on quick answers from those who are going to gain from her decisions.

Particularly when her partner is chairperson of Center City Development Corporation, her campaign manager bought a condo prior to the project being approved (at what price we don’t know?) and she received campaign contributions from the developer.

Toni Atkins does not seem to understand that she should have excused herself from the vote on 301 University and allowed the council to freely vote.

She stated that she did not made up her mind on this project until the hearing on this project were completed. KUSI TV reporter, said on a her broadcast, prior to completion of the 301 University hearings, that she was in chambers and that the project passed.

This means that Toni Atkins campaigned for the project in chambers behind closed doors, before the hearings were completed.

She certainly has not represented the best interest of the residents of Hillcrest, nor District 3. Her poor decision on the 301 University development, and other decisions, has gotten this city into one more legal and financial scape.

Should Toni Atkins be recalled? That is a question that many residents of District 3 are now asking themselves.

To recall a council member, the recall petition must contain 15% of the districts registered voters. For example in Councilwoman Toni Atkins district, District 3, there are 67,756 registered voters; only 10163 valid signatures would be needed to launch a recall.

It would take approximately $18,000 for paid gatherers to collect 10,163 signature and only $9000 with volunteers and a few paid gathers. This is very achievable.

George Wedemeyer

See www.gaylesbiantimes.com/?id=8106

Dear Editor:

The article “Residents air redevelopment concerns at Uptown Planning workshop” (GLT, 10/19/06) is inaccurate and misleading in a number of ways. Contrary to what is implied by the use of the word “redevelopment” in the title, Uptown is not in a redevelopment area, and the rules that govern redevelopment do not apply to the Uptown planning area.

Second, the “planning director” (William Anderson) referred to in the article works for the city of San Diego, not the county of San Diego as stated by the author of the article. The author writes, “The first step the county has taken is to combine the city planning department with community investments.” The county has no authority to reorganize San Diego’s city planning department.

My take on what happened at the workshop is as follows: Developers and their friends and employees argued that Uptown (which includes Hillcrest, Mission Hills and University Heights) needs to dramatically increase its population and house new people by building more high-rises. When I spoke, I pointed out that these developers might not live in Uptown. Given that the workshop was designed for people who live in Uptown to have an influence on planning in the community, we needed to hear from more people who actually lived in Uptown and were not developers.

I also pointed out that there is a good place for new high-rises. It’s called “downtown”. Uptown, being on top of a hill and surrounded by canyons, is not the logical place to increase population and add even more traffic to our congested streets. Other community members finally got a chance to speak, and most of them were against turning Uptown into a mini-Manhattan. Unfortunately, Council member Kevin Faulconer left before a lot of those people had a chance to express their opinions.

Andrew Towne

See www.gaylesbiantimes.com/?id=8329

Dear Editor:

Saturday (Oct. 14) morning, San Diego City Council members Toni Atkins and Kevin Faulconer hosted a community forum to discuss planning issues in the Uptown community at Recital Hall in Balboa Park.

We were told that, at one point, more than 100 people showed up to participate.

What we weren’t told from the outset was, that in spite of having a say in setting the time and date for the meeting, Faulconer was going to bail on his constituents to honor a commitment to one of his children. He waited until 11:35 a.m. to make the announcement and left Atkins to hear from the remaining residents long after most of the developers and outsiders took their potshots at the folks living in Hillcrest, Mission Hills and University Heights.

Not having attended such a community meeting set up by politicians in quite a while – probably with the intention to sooth the savage citizenry after the council’s approval of the 301 University Avenue project – I was surprised when many of the residents who regularly attend such meetings said they believed the council members stacked the speaker cards in favor of the developers and their supporters.

It appeared the developers received most of the early speaking slots, along with what some folks referred to as the developers’ speaking “plants” from as far away as UTC. Why would a resident of UTC take umbrage with Uptown residents’ concerns about height restrictions on buildings in Hillcrest and Mission Hills?

As these seasoned community-meeting folks predicted, the longer the meeting dragged on with testimony from the developers and their allies, the more frustrated and disillusioned the residents of the First and Second District became and their number started to dwindle.

However, enough residents remained and made their strongest and most succinct points that they would not tolerate the end runaround from the council members any longer and that their voices would be heard. One of the speakers even mentioned the word “recall.”

While the encounter was mostly civil, in the end it was obvious that Atkins and Faulconer were doing what comes naturally for most politicians – damage control by paying lip service to the voters.

Lee A. Schoenbart