Yes on Prop D: Why I support Proposition D By Bill Kolender Having spent a lifetime in law enforcement — as a beat cop, San Diego police chief and sheriff — I know who to trust when it comes to protecting our families from crime. With the election this November, San Diegans will be making a decision that will determine the kind of city we live in. It’s never been more important than now to know who you can trust on matters of public safety. For decades, the San Diego Police Department has been a national model of innovation and efficiency. We were leaders in the movement that brought about community-oriented policing. We have been able to keep our crime rates low and reduce our priority-call emergency response times, despite having far fewer officers per capita, and far less resources than other major cities. But without the reforms and revenues that will result from Proposition D, the future of San Diego — and the safety of its citizens — looks bleak. San Diego faces a $72 million deficit next year in its General Fund, the part of the budget that pays for essential public services like police, fire, parks and libraries. Police and fire alone account for half of all General Fund spending. If the City Council has to cut the budget by $72 million, it’s almost certain that public safety will take a serious hit. For years, the mayor, himself a former police chief, and the City Council shielded public safety departments from budget cuts. They did this by taking deeper reductions elsewhere, especially in park and recreation programs and library hours. Overall, more than 1,400 city jobs were eliminated. But as the recession continued to erode revenues, that wasn’t enough. To close a $179 million deficit last year, the city had to eliminate 200 police department positions, including personnel who assist in investigations, support our detectives and enforce neighborhood codes. In that same budget, the City Council began the “rolling brown-outs” at fire stations that idle eight engines a day and increase 9-1-1 response times. It also reduced lifeguard patrols, leaving one popular beach without anyone to guard swimmers. Those were difficult decisions, but they will pale in comparison to the ones the City Council will have to make if Proposition D fails. Mayor Jerry Sanders has made it clear that cuts in public safety will be necessary to balance the budget. As preparation for next year’s budget, the police chief has been asked to propose $15.8 million in additional cuts. The fire chief has been asked to propose $7.2 million in additional cuts. Yet opponents of Proposition D want you to think these threats to public safety are not real. The spokeswoman for the No on D campaign recently advocated that the city eliminate its Lifeguard Service altogether, claiming that people who swim in the ocean should be prepared to pay the price for their risky behavior. The leading opponent of Prop D says it is “ludicrous” to think that the City Council would cut police, fire or lifeguards. Apparently, this politically-ambitious councilman hopes you will forget that last year, the City Council did exactly that. Mayor Sanders, by contrast, has been responsibly reducing and reforming the city budget for five years. And he says that deep cuts in public safety are inevitable if Proposition D fails. The public will have to decide who it believes. I trust Mayor Sanders. You should, too. — Bill Kolender retired as county sheriff last year after more than 50 years in law enforcement, including 13 years as San Diego‘s chief of police. No on Prop D: A blank check tax increase By Carl DeMaio Every San Diegan wants their city government to get back on the right track. Fortunately, most San Diegans realize the way to fix city government is not to give it more money, but to insist on reforms to well-documented waste in the budget and unaffordable pension packages for city employees. Indeed, for years voters have wisely called on city leaders to reform city pensions, cut wasteful spending and open city services up to competitive bidding. Unfortunately, city leaders and city labor unions have spent years delaying, dodging and derailing reform in city government. Now, the politicians and labor unions are desperate — and are asking taxpayers for a bailout with Proposition D. Prop D would raise city taxes by a half-billion dollars — at a time when many San Diegans are already struggling to make ends meet. Worse, Prop D gives city politicians a “blank check” tax increase with no guarantees on how the money would be spent. That’s why leading taxpayer advocates and government watchdogs all oppose Prop D. To try to lure voters into supporting this massive tax hike, city politicians and labor unions are saying simply “trust us.” Their campaign advertisements go to shameful lengths — threatening layoffs to police and firefighters. In this regard, Prop D is one of the most misleading propositions to make the ballot. While Prop D is being sold by city politicians and city labor unions as “restoring” vital city services, not a penny of the increased tax is earmarked for important programs such as police and fire services. To the contrary, with the city’s annual pension payment increasing dramatically each year, you can expect increased tax revenues to be diverted to the city’s financially-troubled pension system rather than to restore city services. The pension and retiree health-care funds are more than $3.4 billion in debt — and the true annual cost of retirement benefits last year was more than $370 million — or roughly two-thirds of the city payroll. These costs are driven by unaffordable pension benefit packages awarded to city government employees over the years — a problem that Prop D fails to solve. City employees can retire as early as age 50, can “double-dip” by receiving their full salary and a full pension allowance during the last five years of their city service, and receive free taxpayer-funded healthcare for life — among other perks that you will be hard pressed to find anywhere but our city government. San Diegans do not receive these lavish benefit packages, but under Prop D they are now being asked to pay more during a historic economic downturn to pay the bill for them. In this regard, Prop D is essentially a “pension tax” that will be used to service unaffordable pensions and benefits granted to city employees over the years. Prop D’s proponents shamefully tout “reforms” as part of their ballot arguments to convince voters to approve the tax increase. However, Prop D does not require that any financial reforms actually be implemented. Moreover, several of the “conditions” included in Prop D are weak and outright misleading. While proponents claim they have already made cuts, the truth is virtually all of the positions eliminated over the years were vacant. When proponents claim they have reformed pensions, the reality is they have made only modest changes for new hires — and left the lion’s share of pension perks untouched. While they claim to embrace managed competition as part of Prop D, they refuse to commit to actually bid out any services. City politicians know the “conditions” in Prop D are simply provided to help sell a tax increase to voters. That’s why Prop D contains no concrete targets for actually saving money for city taxpayers. Without concrete guarantees that fiscal reforms will be implemented, the city of San Diego will continue to waste millions of taxpayer dollars each year. And without reform, it won’t be long before city leaders are back again asking for more money with another tax increase. No on Proposition D. — Carl DeMaio is a member of the San Diego City Council representing District 5.