Schools are important, but the science on COVID-19 is clear.

California has now entered a critical new phase in the fight to stop the spread of the coronavirus pandemic. The virus is present in our communities, and we all must work together to prevent its spread. These facts formed the basis of the decision this week by San Diego Unified, Los Angeles Unified and other districts across the state to close our schools. In San Diego Unified, schools will remain closed through April 6.

Not much is more important to a community than its schools. It’s where our children go to learn, play and grow. So although this decision was not an easy one, we feel it’s the right one. We made the decision based on science and in partnership with our colleagues from the world of education.
The science on COVID-19 is clear.

​Those communities that took sweeping action to prevent its spread have fared better than those that waited for the pandemic to take hold. Although very few possible cases of coronavirus have been reported in San Diego County so far, we’ve learned from the experiences of other states and countries that getting out ahead of this virus as much as possible can help contain it.

We made our decision to close in concert with the San Diego Office of Education, Los Angeles Unified and many other districts throughout the state. Together, we concluded (as did every other district in the county) that closing schools is the best way to proactively protect against what Gov. Gavin Newsom has declared a state of emergency.

In an era of intense and often senseless partisanship, there is an initiative on the March ballot opposed by a broad bipartisan coalition of community leaders, including both the San Diego County Democratic Party and the Republican Party of San Diego County. Measure A is a countywide ballot initiative that, if passed, would create added challenges to building the homes and apartments we so desperately need, and further drive up the cost of all housing. As members of the Strategic Roundtable, we join the bipartisan coalition urging a NO vote on Measure A.

Measure A would make our housing affordability crisis worse, and that would hit young families, seniors and workers the hardest. It would negatively impact all of us. Our entire region would suffer — economically, environmentally and socially — if voters approve Measure A.

Thirty years ago, Peter Navarro launched a campaign to cap the number of housing units in our region by trying to stoke fears of sprawling development and traffic congestion. Voters across the county rejected all of the no-growth propositions promoted by Navarro, and as a result San Diego became one of the most vibrant economies in the nation. Navarro is now in the Trump Administration backing tariffs that increase the cost of goods and service

California is facing a profound crisis because of the cost of housing. With rents for modest apartments topping $2,000 in many cities and the median cost of homes north of $550,000, it’s no wonder the ridiculous cost of a roof over one’s head has caused California to have the nation’s highest rate of poverty — and caused growing numbers of poor and middle-income residents to flee the Golden State.

The factors driving this crisis were clearly laid out in a state Legislative Analyst’s Office report in 2015. It found that the high cost of shelter was directly related to a massive shortage of housing stock, which was in turn caused by the difficulty of building new homes and apartments because of the high cost of labor and land — and the regulatory thicket homebuilders face at the local government level.

Against this backdrop, a proposal to make it harder to build housing in large parts of San Diego County would actually harm the local economy by fueling a cycle of less worker housing, higher employer costs, job losses and an exodus of firms and families. If the “SOS” (Save Our San Diego Countryside) measure passes, general plan amendments that add six or more housing units in unincorporated areas would require county voters’ approval.
​
Yes, proponents — mainly environmental groups, some union locals and the wealthy owners of the Golden Door Spa in North County — have effective arguments. They say county supervisors have a history of kowtowing to deep-pocketed developers and approving projects in remote areas with inadequate infrastructure and high fire risks. They argue that “people, not politicians” should be trusted to prevent sprawl. They say that tens of thousands of units could be added under existing zoning.

Written by Andrew Keatts

Mayor Kevin Faulconer unveiled his proposal to eliminate height limits on new development near transit, a headline-grabbing idea he first announced at this year’s State of the City address.
​
In practice, his idea is not as straightforward – or, likely, as controversial—as what he proposed in a speech during which he declared himself a “YIMBY,” for yes in my backyard, generating a raft of national attention for his pro-development stance.

It also kickstarted a fierce debate over city development that has come to define the race to replace Faulconer. Attorney Cory Briggs was so opposed to the speech that he jumped into the mayor’s race, before deciding to run for city attorney instead.

​Councilwoman Barbara Bry has since issued ominous warnings that “they” are coming for the city’s single-family homes and pledged to protect neighborhoods while deriding YIMBY groups as Wall Street tools. Her chief rival, Assemblyman Todd Gloria, sought and won a YIMBY group’s endorsement on the day he launched his campaign.
But Faulconer, it turns out, is not actually proposing a citywide elimination of height limits near transit stations.

In turning his applause line into a policy proposal, he’s tempered it enough that it might not be so controversial after all.

For instance, there would be no changes in single-family home neighborhoods. The policy would be limited to properties that already allow developers to build multi-family housing that are also within a half-mile of rail stations or bus stops where two lines with decent frequency operate.

By Dan Plante

A listing posted online advertises a 200-square-foot studio for $1,050 a month. The shed is located in the backyard of a home on Oregon St. in North Park.
​
The asking price is about $300 per month less than a typical North Park studio. However, renters in the area are reacting with surprise and anger at the high price.

Southern California Rental Housing Association Executive Director Alan Pentico spoke to KUSI News' Dan Plante on the subject:

No one likes a rent increase, but as with all expenses, it is normal for rents to increase over time.
While reasonable rent increases are to be expected, a small number of owners have taken advantage of high demand for housing to impose larger rent hikes.

These rare instances of “rental price gouging” have made headlines, but they don’t reflect the reality of most renters in California. Unfortunately, new statewide legislation designed to address these isolated incidents could actually mean the majority of tenants in San Diego and across the state will see their rent payments increase every single year.

Having passed the Senate and Assembly this week, Assemblymember David Chiu’s Assembly Bill 1482 is now headed to Governor Newsom’s desk for his signature. It would create a government-approved annual increase to rental housing rates. While this legislation would indeed prevent owners from making dramatic rent hikes, it also has an unintended consequence: a strong incentive for owners to impose the maximum allowed rent hike, every single year.

Certainly, price gouging is wrong in any industry or trade — but the idea that gouging is widespread just isn’t backed up by statistics. The vast majority of property owners set reasonable rents and many haven’t raised rents annually, even in today’s strong housing market.
A severe lack of supply makes it expensive to purchase or rent a home in California, and the high price of homes is putting further pressure on the rental market. In San Diego County, AB 1482’s government-approved rent hikes would be more than double the average increase in rent over the past decade, according to data provided to stakeholders by the bill’s author and consultants in the California Assembly Housing & Community Development Committee. As a matter of fact, the data shows in the period between 2007-2017, the median annual increase in contract rent was 2.9%.

Water – we can’t live without it. We expect clean and safe water, straight from the tap 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. And yet we often take for granted everything that is required to keep clean water flowing through our taps.

Just how much funding is needed to ensure water travels seamlessly from the reservoir to the treatment plant, through underground pipes and into our homes and businesses? It’s an ongoing assessment for water utilities, made more challenging by aging systems and new supply projects. Investments in producing clean and reliable water are often costly, which is why education and outreach with customers and stakeholders is critical and can be the difference between greenlighting a project and shelving it indefinitely.

Let’s be clear: Investing in our water system is the right thing to do and is sorely needed. The San Diego region has been working successfully for over three decades to diversify our water supply and increase storage capacity.

These investments, of course, are not free. San Diego County water agencies have invested in  desalination, water reuse and emergency storage at a cost in the billions of dollars. Many other water reliability projects are launching right now, which means several local water agencies have already experienced rate increases and will likely seek to implement even higher rates soon.

But how will customers react when they face the next rounds of rate increases that begin to truly reflect the cost of these improvements?

​Making the case for water rates

Most public retail water agencies prepare what’s called a Cost of Service Study, or “rate case,” every two to five years. This means that they perform a careful analysis of costs for water purchase, operations, maintenance and capital improvements. As a provider of this public service, water utilities are required to bill for the true cost of providing water, not a penny more.

Those rate cases are a huge deal because water utilities must plan not only for cost of the purchase and treatment of the water itself, but also for the massive pipes and related infrastructure that transports the water to our homes and businesses.

It’s through those rate cases that we pay for essential projects like water recycling and purification. Multiple projects are underway across San Diego County to purify recycled water to produce safe, high-quality drinking water. These projects will help ensure we have sources of locally controlled water that should help stabilize rates and supply long-term, but will require significant investment upfront.

Start the Communication Process Today

Customer education is essential to avoid “sticker shock” when rate increases occur. The best approach for communicating to customers about the cost of services and the value of water is far in advance of the proposed rate case increase. The next best time is as soon as possible.

If utilities fail to communicate with their customers about the cost of water, their proposals for rates to pay for critical projects can be met with opposition and backlash. And that’s understandable. Often customers feel they are already paying a lot for water and have done their part to significantly conserve water in recent years.

Lack of support has a cost. If the public is successful in opposing or delaying water infrastructure work, the problem is merely kicked down the road when problems will get more expensive and situations more dire. And even if utilities make it through the public vetting process unscathed and rate hikes are approved, customers who are not regularly receiving utilities communications may not notice news about rate increases until it hits their water bills.

Blindsided customers can become angry and frustrated customers who no longer trust their local water utility.

On the other hand, ongoing communications can foster a positive relationship with customers built on trust, credibility and support of a utility’s needs, including rate increases. Utilities should consider leading strategic communication and outreach campaigns to ensure that they are sharing not only the benefits of infrastructure projects, but information about the cost of improvements. The campaigns can take many forms but typically, they would include a combination of tactics to reach customers. Some examples include:

• Bill inserts
• Mailers
• Website updates
• Email alerts
• Social media engagement
• Media outreach, including media tours and interviews, news releases and being transparent with reporters about the costs of investments
• Public events, such as an infrastructure groundbreaking or ribbon cutting
• Facility tours for community leaders and customers
• Digital advertising
• Door-to-door neighborhood outreach
• Community coffees, where community members can discuss water-related topics with water experts in an informal setting
  ​

All of these tactics are important as part of an integrated marketing and communication strategy.
As a region, we all benefit from a safe, reliable water supply. Through well-planned and executed strategic outreach campaigns, utilities can help customers understand local supply project costs and the value of well-maintained water systems. In the end, the goal is to limit opposition, and even gain support, for essential maintenance and capital improvements.
​
Lani Lutar owns and operates Responsible Solutions, which services several water clients. Danielle Thomsen is a senior account executive with Manolatos Nelson Murphy Advertising & Public Relations, which services multiple water clients.

A little market, some big boats, and a $2 billion project are poised to revive San Diego’s commercial fishing industry  ​

“The beginning was tough—they didn’t trust us,” says Yehudi “Gaf” Gaffen, CEO of Protea Waterfront Development, referring to San Diego’s fishermen and women. “For decades they’ve been discriminated against and business has been taken away from them. People take advantage of them.”
Gaffen and his company have won the bid to redevelop the San Diego harbor. Their $2 billion “Seaport San Diego” plan will historically alter the future of the city’s waterfront—70 acres, to be almost exact. The fate of local fishers lies largely in his hands.
And a little fish market on a little dock may be the reason both Gaffen and the fishers themselves are so keenly aware of their vital importance.

The Glory DaysThere’s a decent chance San Diego’s fishermen and women have stopped reading this story by now, because it starts with a quote from a developer. Fishers have historically viewed developers as their most feared predator. In a city like San Diego, the water’s edge is the gold vein, the bounty, the most valuable thing.

​And while many players are involved—the San Diego Unified Port District, the California Coastal Commission, the people of San Diego (who own the land)—the fight over it usually boils down to fishers versus developers. Boats versus hotels. Bait versus brunch.
​
Tuna Harbor—located at the end of G Street, sharing a parking lot with the Fish Market restaurant, the USS Midway, and the American Tuna Boat Association—is one of two remaining spots along San Diego Bay dedicated to commercial fishing (the other is Driscoll’s Wharf). Longtime San Diego fisherman David Haworth stands on the edge and points at things. To parking spots that read “Reserved for Commercial Fishermen.”

To the swarm of pedestrians and tour buses clogging the lot. To an aging dock where lobster traps and nets are stacked like a working-class art installation. To the 100 or so boats, where men with reptilian skin tanned like news anchors repair, well, everything.