The following was originally posted by Rachel Laing of Mayor Sanders’ office as a comment on a recent Richard Rider post. Given the seriousness of the Rider allegation, we thought it more appropriate that the rebuttal run as a post itself, and Ms. Laing provider her permission for us to do so…
From Rachel Laing:
There is nothing in Rider’s “support” that actually backs up the assertion that the mayor lied during the Prop D campaign. All the potential cuts that were listed in the U-T story are still very real possibilities. Nothing has changed since that story was written.
While the press release focuses on efforts the mayor will make to minimize cuts, it hardly suggests steep cuts can be avoided. In fact, at Friday’s press conference, the mayor said point blank: “Let me be very clear: There will be cuts, and there will be layoffs.” When asked by a reporter if public safety cuts were still on the table, the mayor said they were: “Public safety is not off the table. When it’s 50 percent of the budget, we have to look at that. I’ll certainly try to minimize the impact, but there’s going to be impacts.”
So how can you say the mayor lied? The $73 million we need to balance the budget didn’t go away simply because the voters said they didn’t want to contribute more to fill the gap. We’ve identified MAYBE a couple million dollars of cuts that will impact only a small fraction of residents, but no one has pulled any rabbits out of the hat yet, friends.
Comments 5
Too bad the mayor wasn’t as forthright is his press release. Did you write that misleading piece, Rachel? No mention of cuts in the upbeat PR — guess the mayor thought better of it upon reflection.
BTW, which of you “forgot” to mention that the defined contribution program touted in the PR would apply only to the “general” employees — that our highly paid police, firefighters and lifeguards will be untouched by this largely meaningless (in the next decade) reform. Did you actually get PAID to put out this inaccurate and misleading piece?
Rachel, would you or the mayor (or any other fool) care to wager about the projected cuts? These cuts were presented as “no option” other than a sales tax increase. I bet that we won’t cut a THIRD of the police and firefighters the mayor and staff were projecting election eve. And indeed, I’ll be genuinely surprised if we cut that much.
Face it. Everyone involved in the election knew that these threatened cuts were bogus — certainly the MAGNITUDE of the cuts. Our side knew it, but more important, YOUR side knew it. And when you KNOW what you are saying is false, you are lying.
Other solutions are available, and I doubt the city council wants to be blamed for public safety deaths that result from major cuts. When y’all get over your peevishness at getting your butts kicked at the polls, try to overcome your disdain for Carl DeMaio and look at seriously at the REAL solutions that Carl has presented.
I’ve been fighting higher taxes for over 30 years, dating back to Prop 13. I’ve been in many of these battles, and learned a lot.
One pattern is that those who want tax increases will insist that — ALWAYS sadly — there is no alternative. But what I’ve found is that, when something is needed or desired by the public and politicians, there are MANY alternatives to higher taxes.
We need only go back to the San Diego County parcel tax election of November, 2008 to see this strategy — and what happens when it fails. Within two weeks of the election rejecting the parcel tax, our county’s regional fire authority was formed. We have moved forward with this meritorious idea without a tax increase.
In the 1990’s, I led the opposition against two library sales tax measures — one city and one county. In each case, higher taxes were presented as the only option to improve libraries. Indeed, one campaign adopted as it’s slogan “there is no plan ‘B’.” IN each case, after the tax failed, the improvements were made anyway.
The same pitch came on the 1989 “jail” countywide half percent sales tax. When we were able to overturn the illegal sales tax in the state supreme court, [then] Supervisor Bilbray was quoted as saying something like “the criminals will be dancing in the street” because this tax was repealed.
They didn’t dance — because the jails (and courthouses) were built anyway — with existing funds.
What bothers me is that OVER AND OVER AND OVER these “no alternative” lies are skillfully fed to the voters — and it seems that no one steps forward to hold them accountable for their prevarications afterward, when the evidence is clear that they knowingly spread falsehoods to the voters.
I find this particularly reprehensible when the threat of death and destruction is the core pitch. Too often this DE FACTO extortion works — as it did in El Cajon, La Mesa and National City.
Are we supposed to say “oh, that’s just politics” and move on? I don’t think so. I talked to frightened senior citizens who strongly opposed the San Diego city sales tax this fall, but were frightened by the cynical campaign featuring the police chief and fire chief — and the mayor.
Am I the only one who feels disgust for this crass dishonesty? I sure hope not!
The Fire Pits can be taken away, the rest rooms at the beach and downtown for the Homeless can be closed, the public Libraries and Recreation Center can be shut down but Mayor Sanders does not allow Volunteers to take over menial Union labor jobs, because the jobs are owned by the Unions.
City Attorney Goldsmith stated that the only thing needed for Volunteers to take over city Union jobs is for the Unions to meet and confer with the Mayor. After good faith negotiations, and in accordance with Managed Competition, the Mayor can choose the options that costs the least, which would be zero dollars for Volunteers.
Sanders wasn’t lying! He was just reflecting the updated post-election reality as provided by MiniTrue. His previous statements are inoperative.
Principled public relations practitioners who follow the Public Relations Society Code of Ethics do not knowingly disseminate misleading or false information. I refer Rostra readers to the document as food for thought: http://www.prsa.org/AboutPRSA/Ethics/CodeEnglish/index.html
Public relations professionals who hold Accreditation in Public Relations (APR), approximately 2% of all public relations people in the United States, sign a Code of Conduct in which we pledge to follow the PRSA Code of Ethics. Take note whether a public relations representative is Accredited. I’m proud to say I’m one of about 50 such folks in San Diego County.