Redevelopment in San Diego?
Over the past week I have attended no less than two ‘Sliver along the Trolley’ community plan working group meeting. The first the Commercial & Imperial Corridor Master Plan – Working Group Meeting #3 and the Euclid + Market Land Use and Mobility Working Group #2 Meeting.
I can only repeat what the community members at the first meeting said, ‘I live and own property right along the trolley, those are pictures of my buildings you have up on the screen – was not noticed’; myself, I (the Chair of a local community planning group) and at least one other MAPA member did not get a notices until the very day of the meeting and then got a call ‘follow-up’ at about 2:30 pm asking that I attempt to show-up. It seems the current land owners are not invited to participate in the profits of redevelopment, and as there appeared to be less than 5% Latino community members at either meeting neither is the Latino Community. The clear majority at both of these meetings, City and County staff, and other employees of the governmental structures such as those involved in the development and redevelopment processes or who work for city owned corporations linked to economic development / redevelopment.
At both meetings it was stated that some 4,000 people were ‘noticed’ of both meetings – were they noticed like me – the very day of the meetings? Clearly, the communities are not in attendances at these meetings at anywhere close to representative levels. The Governmental structures are, and it seems they all lend their support for whatever plan they are presenting; for in the meetings it is clear that the super-majority of the time – it is the Government who is talking and saying what it is the non-presented communities “want” and not the organic communities. And, when the community gets so frustrated with the re-presentation of non-organic community plans as being their own, that it is driven to speak out and take a stand – what happens then? Well, it seems the community members are called rude, unprofessional…, non-professional and non-courteous and unknowledgeable.
Why is wrong to cause offence, when it is clear by the conditions of our streets, our schools, our infrastructures, our economy, and the gentrification that seems to always take-place after the mechanized wheels of redevelopment have changed the landscapes of communities – have so offended the super-majority of pre-redevelopment populations?
Gregory Morales
San Diego
Shifting our approach in Arizona
Over a week ago, my organization, the National Council of La Raza (NCLR), along with the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights and the Asian American Justice Center, announced the suspension of our participation in the economic boycott of Arizona. As was the case when NCLR initially announced our plans to join in boycotting the state in May 2010, we consulted with a wide variety of our partners, including our network of nonprofit Affiliate organizations across the country-13 of which are based in Arizona-and our sister civil rights institutions. We did not come to the decision to boycott Arizona lightly, nor do we end our participation now without careful consideration.
In particular, we were moved to act after receiving requests from Arizona’s elected officials, business leaders, union leaders, religious leaders, and local NCLR Affiliates.They believe that this was the right time for NCLR to suspend its boycott activities in order to promote a more constructive debate around the issue of immigration. There is a concerted and growing effort in the state to foster civil and constructive dialogue—voices who represent a broader swath of Arizona than the brand of extremism that has tarnished the state. In light of the injunction against the law, and these growing efforts committed to charting a new course, we agreed to suspend our participation in the boycott.
Our opposition to racial profiling laws like SB 1070 is unequivocal, and the work against them continues. The record has shown that they are destructive political wedges that undermine the social and economic fabric of the communities where they are pushed through. And because of that we understand why other organizations and allies may choose to continue to boycott the state, and we respect that decision completely. For our part, we reserve the right to reinstate the boycott should the law be implemented, and in the meantime will continue to work with and lend our support to local partners trying to get their state back on track.
Ultimately though, by pursuing this new course, we hope we can play a role in bringing SB 1070 supporters and opponents together to find the common ground needed to advance sustainable solutions to fix our broken immigration system. We look forward to working together with all Arizonans – and Americans – of good will to seek real, lasting solutions that are consistent with our nation’s most fundamental values and principles.
Janet Murguía
President and CEO of the National Council of La Raza
Sweetwater District Elections Process explained
The Sweetwater Union High School District voted 3-2 to initiate a change of the district’s election system to by-trustee area elections for the 2012 board election. Board members Pearl Quinones and Bertha Lopez opposed the change.
To date, the Sweetwater District—in partnership with the San Diego County Office of Education—has conducted three levels of study to help determine the next steps in the process. The three levels have included a review of 2010 Census data and a legal analysis of voter areas.
In passing the resolution to change the election process, the district will now move forward in retaining a demographer and legal counsel to determine preliminary trustee areas. Those suggestions will be brought to the community in a series of public meetings to be held throughout the district. All community input must be obtained before February, 2012, when the board will vote on final trustee areas to submit to the County Committee. (San Diego County Office of Education serves as the County Committee)
Education Code 5020 requires the County Committee to seek voter approval of changing the election process. Part of the resolution passed Monday night also includes the request for a waiver of the voter approval requirement in order to give the district the ability to place the new trustee areas on the November, 2012 ballot. Public input will be received on the waiver request and voted on by the board in November, 2011. The district is seeking the waiver because of the cost for a separate election and the uncertainty of the outcome. If voters did not approve the change in election process, the district would still be at risk of a lawsuit under the California Voting Rights Act.
At-large elections, such as the current system in Sweetwater, have been subject to challenge under the California Voting Rights Act.
Lillian E. Leopold, APR
Director, Grants and Communications
Sweetwater Unified High School District