Author: John R. McLaurin

California voters are going to face dozens of statewide and local ballot propositions in November. Without question the strangest and most implausible of all the measures is a local initiative in San Diego – Proposition B. If enacted, this fantasy island in the sky would allow for the construction of a 100 acre deck suspended over a marine terminal.

The deck would supposedly support the construction of a football stadium and hotel facility on top of a working marine terminal. Underneath the hundred thousand people attending football games would be ships unloading cargo, trucks, fork lifts moving back and forth along with a jet fuel storage facility (barbeques at tailgating parties would be strongly discouraged).

Sound too incredible to be true? Unfortunately not. Interestingly, the proponents of Proposition B have managed to unify just about everyone in San Diego against this measure. Labor unions, the entire local Congressional delegation, environmental groups, chambers of commerce, mayors, city council members, the San Diego Union-Tribune, taxpayer associations, international trade organizations, retired military leaders, the California State Lands Commission and academics are all opposed to this measure.

I attended a debate between two candidates running for the Assembly. My assemblyman has been termed out and it is an open seat. The debate was well attended and took place at a local school. Being that I live in a small town, over the years I have come to know both candidates. They are both good people. Both hold local offices, are well respected in the community and viewed as successful public officials.

The debate was civilized and was more an exchange of ideas than a debate or clash of different positions or philosophies. The focus of the debate was on children, including education. I have two daughters in public school, one of whom is autistic – and with a daughter in special education, I have witnessed both the best and worst that our public school system has to offer.

Interestingly, a lot of the questions raised at the debate by the audience focused on how the Legislature works (or doesn’t work) in Sacramento and the adverse implications for our children. Both candidates claimed that they would work hard to solve the State’s budget crisis. Both promised to “reach across the aisle” and work in a bipartisan fashion. Both cited the Nicole Parra banishment and promised that our children would come first and they would have no problem voting against the leadership of their respective political party.