Image credit: Pixabay
By Richard Riehl / The Riehl World
Two years ago Carlsbad’s City Council voted unanimously to let a billionaire Los Angeles developer bring a traffic-laden supermall nightmare to the unsullied shores of the city’s Agua Hedionda Lagoon.
The Council could have allowed 30 days for citizen feedback before approving the project, or schedule a special election to determine its fate. But all five council members chose to ignore the pleas of outspoken opponents at the Aug. 25, 2015, council meeting. Mayor Matt Hall claimed naysayers were led by outside interests.
He was wrong. Citizen action launched an initiative drive leading to the defeat of Measure A, a special election that stopped the developer in his tracks, wrangled an apology from the mayor, and replaced a hapless council member with the election of Cori Schumacher, a leader in the “No on A” campaign.
Fast-forward to this year’s May 9 meeting, where city leaders, on a 3-to-2 vote, bowed to the threat of a lawsuit charging the city with violating the California Voting Rights Act with its at-large elections.
Three council members, responsible enough to recognize the city’s risk of losing millions in a lawsuit, voted to adopt by-district elections. But Mayor Hall and Councilmember Mark Packard chose the politically popular path. They voted against the change, claiming abandoning at-large elections would destroy the city’s famous leadership accord. After the city collapsed in community divisiveness they could say, “We told you so.”
It came as no surprise to learn the two longest serving beneficiaries of at-large elections were the ones most threatened by change. They were unable, or unwilling, to recognize it was their cozy group-think that pitted neighbor against neighbor in the unnecessary and costly community confrontation leading to the vote on Measure A.
As it turns out, the process for creating maps of the four voting districts has been largely responsible for restoring civility to council meetings.
It began with the hiring of a consultant, Douglas Johnson, president and founder of the National Demographics Corporation, to draft voting district maps that comply with the Federal Voting Rights Act and the California Voting Rights Act. Johnson, a nationally recognized expert in demographics and mapping voting districts, created three maps dividing voters into four districts.
What was most impressive was the response to the city’s call for citizen involvement. The invitation to submit recommendations, together with detailed demographic data made readily available on the city’s website, resulted in eight maps from nine city residents.
At its July 18 meeting, the council adopted a map drawn by two individuals who were on opposite sides of Measure A. Arnie Cohen had supported the developer’s project. Brian Flock opposed it. They came together to draw up two maps for consideration.
Notably absent from the July 18 meeting was the angry vitriol present at so many council meetings over the last two years. All public speakers who explained their preferences that night based their opinions on data, rather than self-interest.
Will district elections destroy Carlsbad’s community spirit, as Hall and Packard claim?
Before voting on the districting map, Packard, as if on cue, quoted the mayor: “The Mayor last time pointed out the history that whenever you go to a district … the elected officials quickly go to seeking only the interests of the district, opposed to the interests of the overall community and history has proven that …”
Before casting his vote, Mayor Hall echoed his fellow old guard member: “What’s made Carlsbad really great is that you’ve each had five people in the past who represent you. So, if our views choose to differ today you’ve got four others to try to align yourself with.”
Without giving their sources, Hall and Packard claim history shows district elections are invariably divisive to communities. Not according to the National League of Cities, which lists on their website the disadvantages of at-large elections, as well as the advantages of district elections, both ignored by Carlsbad’s two longtime council members
According to the NLC:
“At-large elections can weaken the representation of particular groups, especially if the group does not have a citywide base of operations or is an ethnic or racial group concentrated in a specific area. District council members are more sensitive to the small but important problems of their constituents, like waste disposal. District elections may improve citizen participation because a council member who represents a specific district may be more responsive to their constituency.”
In Carlsbad’s 2006 election, Hall was elected to the council with 35 percent of the vote, Packard with 30 percent. Each was expected to represent the best interests of 100 percent of voters.
At-large elections may lead to collaboration among council members since they know it takes only a plurality of voters to keep them in office. It explains why at-large incumbents are rarely defeated.
In addition to giving more power to smaller communities in less politically influential neighborhoods, district elections open the door to candidates who are not members of the city’s old guard political network or do not have pockets deep enough to self-fund citywide campaigns.
Take the position of mayor, for example, which will remain at-large. Matt Hall has already begun raising money to fund his campaign for reelection next year. According to his campaign committee’s latest financial disclosure statement, he’s already raised $51,000. Half of that amount came from five donors. Add another $50,000, unspent and carried over from his 2014 campaign to 15 more months of fundraising and it should come as no surprise if he winds up running unopposed.
As for council member campaigns, the four winning candidates in the last two elections raised a total of $150,000. The cost to campaign in districts one-fourth the size of the city might be expected to fall below $10,000.
It will take more than district elections alone to keep big money developers and old guard cronyism at bay in Carlsbad. To do that will take limits on campaign contributions and terms of office.
Latest posts by Richard Riehl (see all)
- Carlsbad’s Bogus State of the City Video - August 16, 2017
- Will District Elections Loosen the Grip of Carlsbad’s Old Guard? - August 7, 2017
- Carlsbad Mayor Matt Hall’s Profile in Cronyism: Formalizing Appointments to City Committees - June 14, 2017
Meanwhile, there’s nothing to keep raw bagloads of money out of district elections. Citizens are United, the developers will say.
Bob, no disagreement and I’d love to see campaign contribution limits. At the same time, don’t forget how disgusted folks were with the amount of money Caruso’s campaign spent by the time Measure A was voted upon in Carlsbad. It was OVERKILL. Folks saw past the $$$.
The fight to limit campaign contributions, the overturning of Citizen’s United, and term limits must be addressed by not only Carlsbad, but the states and the Country. We cannot hope to have honest elections until we find solutions for these things. Until then, we are all adrift in the same old political boat, without an oar and the shore nowhere in sight!
That’s pretty much correct. A year ago, I spoke out in favor of campaign limits. Councilmember Keith Blackburn said that he’s not in favor of arbitrary campaign limits because the big money would just go dark into 501(c)(4)/PACs thanks to Citizens United. We’d potentially have even less transparency on contributions. I’ve rethought my position and think campaign limits are a feel-good solution that may make the problem worse. PACs often love a negative messaging campaign.
In November, California approved Proposition 59 which states that we are against the Citizens United ruling and want to change the laws. However, we need a national will on the subject. Prop 59 was largely symbolic.
It’s a frustrating situation for voters who want big money limited in our elections.
Blackburn’s argument is a smokescreen argument for the status quo. Journalists love the opportunity to expose corruption of dark money behind negative ads. The corruption of candidates who are supported by dark money ads will be exposed just as surely as those who get big money now from deep pocket donors.
Matt Hall…the best Mayor money can buy. And he wants some return on the investment for himself as well. It’s not enough that the hotel owners and pro-tourism people are enriching themselves along with the outside developers. Matt aka Mayor Mall wants to pull strings behind the scenes to enrich himself even more. Trouble is that the curtain has been pulled aside and we can see that the Wizard of Oz is really just a greedy former junkyard owner.
Campaign contributions and campaign spending must have limits assigned to them. A code of ethics preventing issues that involve financial transactions that involve a mayor or council members interests needs to be enacted as well. If the council lacks the will to do this, then the people must bring this to the ballot box.
When cities go to districts, it allows more diverse groups of people to have their voice heard. It may seem more chaotic to have public differences of opinion in councilmembers because they were elected by districts with differing views, but personally I believe it is a primary strength of our form of government. I always found it creepy the way the council (pre-Cori) almost always voted 5-0.
An interesting post, though with one noted inaccuracy. Mr. Flock was certainly not involved in the “A” campaign on the “no” side, except as (perhaps) a voter. The work product that ended up being adopted was one that disenfranchised and divided the Coast into three realtor and developer friendly districts. It is very plausible that it is a map gerrymandered in favor of the incumbent regime. In return, Mr. Flock received his long awaited mayoral appointment to some minor commission or another.
Anonymous pseudonym critic with “plausibilities” and zero evidence. The new Carlsbad way of division?
I volunteered my time to Carlabad with district maps and I continue to volunteer my time to Carlsbad. Your comments are condescending to voters and volunteers as if service to the city was somehow a vice.
The suggestion that this is a real estate driven map is an arbitrary conspiracy theory and patently false. Our focus–again as volunteers–was on city unity. We included common issues in each district so that they could relate to each other and hopefully cooperate.
You regrettably appear to have the opposite goal.
Where’s your map?
The great thing about the maps that were submitted by the volunteer citizens is that there was feedback from the public not just the city councilmembers and the demographer. But out of over 100,000 citizens only about 15 – 20 maps were submitted with some citizens submitting more than one map.
Hey folks, let’s not kid ourselves. We were certainly “allowed” to throw our time into maps, going through the exercise, but let’t remember who chose the map. The City Council majority was never going to be out of control on this one. They ran the show, beginning to end.