By Doug Porter
Seriously. We need to know. UT-San Diego and KPBS have run stories about an initiative in the works proposing an increase in the minimum wage that’s less than the one currently under consideration by the City Council. In fact, the “increase” it purports to offer wouldn’t affect 93% of businesses small and large in the city via loopholes large enough to drive a truck through.
It takes serious money and/or a large grass roots organization to collect signatures for a ballot initiative. Essentially you’ve got to get 100,000 people to sign a petition in the hope that 68,000 or so will be recognized as valid. The shipbuilders association spent somewhere south of a half million dollars to get their measure killing the Barrio Logan Community Plan on upcoming the June ballot. The 2012 Proposition B Pension Reform backers spent over a million bucks.
Yet the person who is the “face” of this competing measure, Blanca Lopez-Brown, only came up with 159 qualifying signatures on the nominating petition for her 2013 candidacy for a city council seat. She placed fifth in that special election (1,084 votes). And money? Doesn’t have any to speak of. So this begs the question, who’s really backing this initiative?
On April 4th a legal notice was published the San Diego Daily Transcript announcing “the intention of the person whose name appears hereon to circulate a petition within the City of San Diego for the purpose of amending City law to provide increased wages and other protections for employees working in the City.”
The address under Blanca Lopez Brown’s name on the notice was PO Box 720332, San Diego, CA 92172. Googling that address reveals it’s been used for a variety of enterprises, from Southern Californians for Jessica’s Law to the San Diego County Prosperity Foundation. The one thing all those groups appear to have in common is Thomas J. Zane, outgoing president of the Lincoln Club of San Diego.
via 10News
Here’s a bit of the February 24th UT-San Diego article announcing Zane’s planned July departure from the Lincoln Club:
He was hired as the group’s executive director in December 2006 and has helped direct campaign and management services for mostly GOP candidates as well as opposition and support for ballot issues.
In the just-completed mayoral campaign, Zane oversaw Lincoln Club ads attacking Qualcomm executive and former state Assemblyman Nathan Fletcher, who finished third in the Nov. 19 first round.
In the runoff between City Councilmen David Alvarez and the eventual winner, mayor-elect and fellow Councilman Kevin Faulconer, the Lincoln Club funded mailers showing Alvarez holding wads of cash in a manner some groups suggested was reminiscent of a gang gesture.
And here’s another snippet from a 2012 article via San Diego Community News Group:
In the midst of downtown’s Civic Center Plaza, District 1 City Councilwoman Sherri Lightner called a press conference on Nov. 1 to address what fellow councilmembers called the “blatantly false” allegations Ray Ellis — Lightner’s opponent in the race for the District 1 seat — has circulated with last-minute election mailings to the district’s constituents.
City Council president Tony Young joined councilmembers Todd Gloria, Marti Emerald and David Alvarez to support Lightner in her attempt to dispel claims made on mailers distributed by Ellis’ campaign and the Lincoln Club of San Diego County, which assert the incumbent awarded $28 million in bonuses to city employees. The mailers refer to a former city program called Bid to Goal, which, according to the Voice of San Diego, awarded city workers up to $4,000 per year in extra pay for helping the city’s bottom line by finding efficiencies in their jobs. The program, Voice of San Diego reported on Oct. 26, was voted in and reached its peak of spending — where the $28 million figure comes from — before Lightner came to office in late 2008.
Activist art on University Avenue, via RaiseUp San Diego’s Twitter feed
The rising awareness of inequality in the nation has made increasing the minimum wage a popular idea. The President’s proposal to raise the minimum wage to $10.10 an hour has support from small business owners and a strong majority of voters. It had majority support in the Senate, too—but not enough votes to break a Republican filibuster, which is how it died this morning.
So the backers of this competing proposal has opted for the “if you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em” strategy.
Blanca Lopez-Brown appeared on KPBS Midday Edition yesterday as an advocate for this proposal. Perhaps it was just nervousness, but she appeared to fumble her way through many of the questions.
And then there was this exchange on Twitter:
KPBS Midday Edition @KPBSMidday
Blanca Lopez-Brown says she based the second minimum wage ballot measure on analysis by National University’s @VinceVasquezSD
A few minutes later Vasquez, who describes himself as a policy analyst, chimed in.
Vince Vasquez @VinceVasquezSD
@KPBSMidday what analysis? I haven’t published anything on min. Wage, nor have I spoken to brown or anyone outside NUSIPR on the issue.
A few minutes later, that Tweet was deleted. UPDATE: Vasquez says it’s not deleted. I screwed up.
A search of National University’s web site does not show any materials relating to minimum wage increases among their four major policy reports and 12 shorter policy briefs.
Why Hasn’t The Question Been Asked?
Certainly this proposal looks to be a subterfuge. Perhaps it’s a negotiating tool to get the City Council to retreat on their idea of a $13.10 minimum wage. Or perhaps it’s a full-on “dirty trick” to split the vote come November.
I think the answer lies with finding out who is underwriting this. In addition to the usual suspects at the Lincoln Club, the local chapter of the Restaurant Association, since they would benefit from the loopholes in the law, would be another logical choice.
So, would the next reporter working on this story ask Ms. Lopez-Brown who’s picking up the tab? I don’t think that’s too much to ask.
In the meantime please don’t sign any petitions relating to a minimum wage increase that excludes 93% of the city. There’s a 100% probability it’s this fake deal. The City Council measure doesn’t need a petition.
By the way, the REAL deal means:
- Expanded access to earned sick days to over 260,000 San Diegans;
- Increasing the wages of roughly 200,000 San Diegans;
- Raising the annual earnings of impacted workers an average of approximately $2,800; and
- Putting approximately $580 million into the pockets of San Diego’s lowest income working families, who will turn around and spend most of that money at local stores and businesses.
The Sky is Falling! (Internet Edition)
I’m big on internet freedom issues and on a gazillion lists, meaning I get mail from groups fighting the good fight for net neutrality just about every day.
I’ve become increasingly skeptical about these emails in recent months in the face of a near-constant barrage of “the end of the internet is near” messages. Fortunately, I paid attention this week. Something bad IS actually afoot with the Federal Communications Commission.
Here’s the Los Angeles Times’ Michael Hiltzik with the Cliff Notes version:
You couldn’t say the crime is being committed by stealth. Quite the contrary: Tom Wheeler, the chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, is aiming to slay net neutrality in broad daylight. The murder weapon is a proposal to allow Internet service providers to charge content companies more for faster access to their subscribers.
Wheeler’s proposal, which is scheduled for a preliminary vote by the full FCC on May 15, has been assailed as a full-scale retreat from the open-Internet principle traditionally upheld by the commission, and explicitly supported by President Obama. Wheeler claims he’s not backing away from net neutrality at all, and that assertions to the contrary are the product of “a great deal of misinformation.”
He’s blowing smoke. The critics are right. Wheeler’s proposal will turn the Internet as we know it into the private preserve of a handful of rich and powerful companies. It will make them richer and more powerful. And you’ll be getting the bill. If the commission votes for the proposal, it will then be subject to months of public comments. But the risk is it could become law by the end of this year.
No Gays for Fox News
Thanks to several readers who pointed out the Fox News pity party piece on Carl DeMaio was published with comment function turned off. I guess their typical readers reactions might undermine the thesis presented in the story that the evil Democrats are fountains of intolerance.
Gawker media is out with a convincing report saying Fox News anchor Shepard Smith was demoted (to an afternoon time slot) after trying to come out of the closet as a gay man.
In the summer of 2013, according to multiple sources with knowledge of their exchange, Shepard Smith approached Fox News president Roger Ailes about publicly coming out. The newly attached anchor was eager, at the time, to finally acknowledge his sexuality.
“It’s time,” he told Ailes and other colleagues. “It’s time.”
Instead, Ailes informed Smith that the network’s famously conservative audience would not tolerate a gay news anchor. Ailes’ answer was definitive: Smith could not say he’s gay.
“This came up during contract negotiations,” a Fox insider told Gawker. “Shep wanted to and was ready to come out, and Roger just said no.”
Smith, one of Ailes’s first and most loyal disciples, acquiesced to his boss’s demand, and dropped the matter. But the discussion worried enough Fox executives to prompt Smith’s removal, in September 2013, from the channel’s coveted prime-time lineup. According to a Fox insider with direct knowledge of negotiations, Smith’s desire to come out was a large factor in the dramatic move.
On This Day: 1803 – The U.S. purchased the Louisiana Territory from France for $15 million. 1970 – U.S. troops invaded Cambodia to disrupt North Vietnamese Army base areas. The announcement by U.S. President Nixon led to widespread protests. 1988 – Pink Floyd’s “Dark Side of the Moon” fell out of the Billboard 200 chart for the first time in 725 weeks.
Did you enjoy this article? Subscribe to “The Starting Line” and get an email every time a new article in this series is posted!
I read the Daily Fishwrap(s) so you don’t have to… Catch “the Starting Line” Monday thru Friday right here at San Diego Free Press (dot) org. Send your hate mail and ideas to DougPorter@
Doug Porter
Latest posts by Doug Porter (see all)
- Last Call. Last Column. - December 14, 2018
- Which Presidential Candidate Will You Support in 2020? - December 13, 2018
- Mounting the Assault on Big Gay and Other Drivel From SDSU’s Minimum Wage Scrooge - December 12, 2018
It was a foregone conclusion that the Senate would not pass a minimum wage law nor will they pass any other progressive measure as long as they have the veto. That’s why the American system of government is entirely dysfunctional. It’s up to the cities, counties and state to take over the job of the Federal government which seems to consist of giving tax breaks to the rich and paying for the world’s biggest military establishment.
I think it was Mother Jones’ David Korn who explained one of the more sneaky tactics of the attempt by service providers to take over the internet: an order that permits the providers to charge for speedier service mean any sites that don’t pay will see their service slow significantly. That would be because there’s only so much bandwidth available; if it’s devoted to the big guys who have the money, it has to be denied to the little startups, like this one.
A lot of us are going to be watching that rainbow circle spinning, and spinning, and spinning…
And the ISPs make out like bandits. They already charge customers more for faster service/higher bandwidth. Now, they’ll charge the content providers on the other end for the same thing. That’s f**kin’ capitalism in action.
The wealthy always get speedier service. N’est pas?