Editorial: Preserve our military bases in BRAC process

By Toni G. Atkins | Assembly Speaker

With a vibrant technology sector, sophisticated infrastructure, vast and beautiful lands, and a quality of life that can only come from months of sunshine, it is no surprise that America’s best and brightest flock to California. The hard-working service men and women who keep our country safe are no exception.

According to the 2013 Defense Manpower Data Center report, California is home to the largest active military population in the nation with 168,820 active service members in residing in our state. California is home to more than 30 federal military bases and installations, which employ approximately 350,000 Californians, both military and civilian.

That is why the Defense Base Closure and Realignment (BRAC) process poses a particular threat to California. Started by the federal government as an efficiency measure to ensure our military can respond to shifting defense needs, the Base Realignment and Closure process has undergone five rounds since 1989.

In previous BRAC rounds, California lost more federal military jobs than all other states combined. And more than any other region, San Diego faces the possibility of being disproportionately affected by further base closures.

The greater San Diego area contains three of the top five military bases with the highest employment numbers in California: Camp Pendleton, San Diego Naval Base and Marine Corps Air Station Miramar.

Twenty-two percent — or nearly 317,000 jobs in San Diego County — are concentrated in the military sector. Whether the field is engineering, health care, information technology or food services, the military employs San Diegans.

Last year San Diego’s military sector brought $25.5 billion in direct spending to San Diego County. This defense-related spending will result in nearly $39 billion of gross regional product for San Diego County, which amounts to nearly 20 percent of the total GRP.

With federal defense officials calling for another round of base closures perhaps as soon as 2017, it is important that we support a cohesive and coordinated effort to maintain California’s military bases and the strategic defense and economic powers that they create.

The Military Council created by Gov. Jerry Brown continues to effectively coordinate efforts to retain and bolster California’s vital role in our nation’s defense. As Californians, now is the time to stand together with the Governor’s Military Council and our service members.

And let’s be clear — California still has a lot to offer. Our educated, tech-savvy workforce is a great resource for the cyber defense initiative that has become so necessary in our modern world. Our diverse landscape provides unique opportunities for a variety of different specialized training bases from air ranges to sea ranges. Our location on the Pacific coast means that we are strategically placed to respond swiftly to conflict in the Pacific Theater. Our private sector contains many thriving businesses that work in symbiosis with the military; and our unique quality of life makes our service people glad to stay in our beautiful state.

You can do your part to ensure California keeps its competitive edge in the next round of BRAC closures by voicing your support to your local elected officials and civic leaders and by supporting organizations like the San Diego Military Advisory Council and San Diego Regional Economic Development Corp. as they implement proactive ways to keep California’s military sector at the forefront of the nation.

Together, we can call on President Barack Obama and members of Congress to remember the harmonious partnership that exists between the U.S. military and the great state of California by preserving our bases.

—Toni G. Atkins is the Speaker of the California State Assembly. For more information, visit her website, asmdc.org/speaker/ where you can sign up for her e-newsletter or get the latest news on legislation and other activities. You also may follow her on Twitter, @toniatkins.

Letters

Not just any ‘old gas station’ 

Regarding the story on Kensington Commons [see “Kensington Commons, urban living fitting into a community,” Vol. 7, issue 9]: There’s mention of an old gas station at Adams and Marlborough. That was my gas station for years — totally convenient, easy entry and exit, easy to see before going in if there might be a wait, nice cashier who punched the credit card, etc.

I left San Diego in 1995, returned four years ago, happy to see my favorite gas station … except now it’s gone; replaced by Kensington Commons. K.C. is attractive and probably a plus for the neighborhood, but I really miss you … old gas station.

Bet I’m not the only one.

—Mrs. Margaret Walker, handwritten and sent via U.S. mail

In the April 24 – May 7, 2015 issue of San Diego Uptown News, within the body of Lucia Viti’s article on the Kensington Commons project, a caption under the lead photograph on the front page describes “a desolate, but high profile corner of Adams Avenue,” and further on page 9, again a captioned photograph references “an old gas station on the corner of Adams Avenue and Marlborough Drive.”

Such a dismissive description to the hundreds of faithful and steady customers of what was a virtual institution and necessity integrated within a realistically accepting and fair, balanced society gives short shrift to those of us with automobiles — meaning virtually everyone — who found this “desolate corner” to be what it might more accurately be described as — it was an automobile “service station,” where one of the best mechanics on earth, Jacob, could do absolutely, positively everything for the many customers of this “old gas station,” from change a flat, to replace the glass, keep engines in tune and replace old, worn-out engines.

All such services were rendered competently, honestly, cheerfully, and with an expertise I have never encountered anywhere else in my 70 years, 30 of them as a customer of the Kensington Auto Center.

To be sure things change and the face of an old established neighborhood with it, but for as long as the inhabitants of Kensington and its environs have the aggregate number of four wheels on the ground that we do, perhaps it would be fairer and kinder to use a respectable name and call a “service station” what it was — we all used it and will miss it.

And for those faithful and grateful patrons of the now gone “service station,” you can still find Jason with all his attributes unchanged and intact at 2912 Adams Ave.

We miss him.

—Steve Hallock, handwritten and sent via U.S. mail

Your article [“Kensington Commons, urban living fitting to a community”], which reads like a real estate advertisement designed to market the property it describes, cries out for a more objective response. In it, the developers of the project boast that Kensington Commons “adds value and fits perfectly,” that its architectural details “add character and sparkle to the already sparkling Kensington” and that “now everyone is pleased.”

We profoundly disagree, not only with the biased viewpoint of the article, but also with the delusional, overarching statements of the developers, who are, naturally, infatuated with their own creation.

Based on our completely un-scientific survey of people we know who live and/or work in Kensington, we have yet to talk to anyone who is happy with this monolithic, out-of-scale block, one which would be more at home in a North County shopping center than at the heart of a 100-year-old village community. The best that most people can muster is that “it could have been worse.” The claim that the structure “maintains Kensington’s village identity” is, like much else in the article, based on wishful thinking.

As for the ersatz “Spanish Colonial” features that supposedly add so much charm to the edifice, they are so minimal as to be barely noticeable; skinny little tile eyebrows, too-small, cheap-looking lighting fixtures, tasteless ironwork and phony arches that are pastiches of genuine Mission Style architecture. Meanwhile, numerous large, hideously ugly sliding windows visually dominate the facade and little effort has been made to integrate the building with its surroundings. No doubt, economies had to be made to make the project profitable, at the expense of aesthetics.

It is truly a tragedy that this building will probably stand at the heart of Kensington for the next hundred years. Future generations will undoubtedly look upon it and ask, “Could it have been worse?”

Hugh & Frances Kamen

A response to “Reckless on two wheels”

In the letter from Nick Beck [see “Reckless on two wheels,” Vol. 7, Issue 9] there were some questions and statements that I’d like to answer.

I am a bicycling instructor trained by two national organizations, and most recently have been contracted by the California Highway Patrol to instruct their officers about bicycling.

People bicycling in California are subject to many of the same responsibilities for behavior in traffic as drivers of vehicles; see California Vehicle Code 21200 [tinyurl.com/1pkq].

Traffic signs and signals apply to people bicycling too. And by the same law, people bicycling have the same rights in traffic as drivers of vehicles. It is unfortunate, and sometimes brings tragic results, that too many people do not know or understand that the rules of the road apply to everyone — bikes, cars and walking. As our government and health officials are encouraging people to try other travel modes — transit, walking and bicycling — there will be some confusion about how best and lawfully to share our public roadways. Let me touch on just a few areas of misunderstanding.

Bicycling is legal on all public roads except some limited access roadways, most but not all freeways are closed to bicycling but are to have alternative routes for bicycling. More sharing of our public roads among people bicycling and people driving motor vehicles is going to mean re-examining some old beliefs for some people; roads are not only for motor vehicles.

People bicycling are to follow the same rules for movement as drivers of vehicles; ride on the right along with other traffic, stop and yield at stop signs, obey traffic signs, signals and laws, use a light and reflectors at night, etc. Enforcement as well as education can help and encourage us all to get along more safely.

While bicycling slower than other traffic is to occur as far right at “practicable” per CVC 21202, there are many circumstances identified in that law when a person bicycling may lawfully occupy a full lane, seemingly in the way of others. Competent bicyclists have learned they are not required nor should they ride “… on the extreme right of any roadway.”

I encourage Mr. Beck to look up CVC 21202 to learn for himself the situations when riding far to the right is not required. Sharing the road does not mean only side-by-side sharing. When the available lane is too narrow for a motor vehicle and a bicycle to be next to each other in that lane, the person wishing to overtake should not do so in the same lane, but should wait behind for a safe opportunity to change lanes and pass. We encourage bicyclists to be as courteous as reasonable and to move aside when it is safe to share the lane side by side. Only on a two-lane road, when delaying five or more vehicles, are slow-moving vehicle drivers and bicyclists required to move aside when there is safe place to do so.

I encourage anyone considering using a bicycle in San Diego traffic to take advantage of information about bicycling’s best and lawful practices. A local source for this information is from the San Diego County Bicycle Coalition, sdbikecoalition.org. The California Department of Motor Vehicles also provides Fast Facts information at tinyurl.com/ofxfann.

See you on the road!

Jim Baross
CABO president
REA president
NHCPG chair
EC/LCI/CSI