San Diego, CA
Criticized for restricting public comment, city council vows to respect the Brown Act
At a San Diego City Council meeting this summer, the chamber was a sea of navy blue from the early morning hours. Swaths of the city’s police force had arrived en masse. Even Mayor Todd Gloria showed up.
The day was meant to be ceremonial, or at the very least symbolic. Fronting the council agenda on June 4 was a proclamation declaring the date Police Chief David Nisleit Day. After 36 years with the force, his last six as police chief, Nisleit would be donning his navy blue uniform one last time that week.
One by one, city officials from Councilmember Marni von Wilpert to Gloria took turns speaking on Nisleit’s legacy. And the outgoing chief himself gave a few but lasting words to wrap up his tenure: “I will continue to love this city, but I will be on the sidelines rooting for all of you.”
But on the sideline elsewhere, an undercurrent of frustration began to brew.
Unlike for other items on the agenda, public testimony was not permitted before or during the presentation of the proclamation.
That drew the ire of a group of community members who suggested the council was violating the Brown Act, California’s open meetings law. Former state Assemblymember Lori Saldaña, one of those barred from commenting, later threatened to sue the city.
In a resolution passed Tuesday evening, the city reiterated its “unconditional commitment to cease, desist from, and not repeat any act preventing public testimony on items presenting proclamations appearing on the council’s agenda as required by the Brown Act.”
When presenting the resolution, Assistant City Attorney Leslie FitzGerald said that the motion was intended “to avoid unnecessary litigation” without admitting any violation of the Brown Act by the city. No lawsuit has yet been filed, she added.
Out of the attendees, few seemed swayed.
“It’s a total disregard for the public’s right to simply express dissent or support,” Saldaña said. “It’s as hollow and empty as (the city’s) commitment for our right to speak.”
Nearing the end of the day, only a few people remained in the queue for public comment. But among those left, one message was consistently brought forth:
“I hope that you truly do have an unconditional commitment to California law and the Brown Act,” said Susan Baldwin, a retired San Diego Association of Governments planner.
The City Attorney’s Office declined to comment on the city’s decision to propose the resolution.
It’s not the first time the city has faced accusations of violating public transparency laws.
In 2017, the Center for Local Government Accountability sued the city for not allowing public comment on non-agenda items, including ceremonial proclamations. The city would ultimately pay the center $70,000 to settle the lawsuit.
The city is now fighting another lawsuit, filed in 2022, by a group that says it “suffered interference or reprisal” by officials during public comment sessions. Among those represented by the plaintiff was Saldaña.
An email obtained by The San Diego Union-Tribune shows that ahead of the June meeting, staff from Council President Sean Elo-Rivera’s office had stipulated that there would be no public comment on the “ceremonial items” on the agenda that day.
Coming up soon at the council may be a proposal to eliminate public comments by phone and Zoom during council meetings. The item was postponed from a recent committee hearing.
Elo-Rivera said it would streamline meetings and noted that other cities and public agencies have made similar moves, after adopting virtual public comment earlier in the pandemic.
But his effort has already been met with steady backlash from critics who call it an intentional effort to curb public comment. Elo-Rivera pushed Wednesday’s hearing on the proposal with the council’s Rules Committee to September so that more time can be given to discuss the item through the next meeting.
During public comment on Tuesday, Baldwin suggested that the city should reconsider any such proposal before being cut off and told to stick to the pertinent agenda item.
Originally Published:
San Diego, CA
More Thoughts on ‘Yes on A’
By Dave Rice
Is Measure A going to affect a significant number of properties? Is it going to affect affordable housing in any meaningful way? Come now, let’s not be dense – this hits a handful of rich people who can absolutely afford to drop $10K in the city coffers if they’re leaving a vacation home vacant on purpose – let’s say that’s their civic contribution that would be realized in other ways if they actually lived, worked, and shopped here full-time.
Or it hits STVR hosts, who can either factor the cost into their business model or give it up if margins are really that thin (maybe not everyone needs to fancy themselves an amateur hotelier). But let’s not kid ourselves and believe the kind of housing this will free up will be plentiful or affordable.
In the exceedingly rare instances where someone might be eligible for an exemption, will it be too hard to apply for? That’s something we can argue and refine but that’s the bathwater, or just the little bit of it that splashes out of the tub, not the baby. An argument that the whole proposal is DOA because military members are too stupid to file for an exemption is either dismissive of or telling tales out of school about what we really think of military intelligence.
Poor, poor grandma who needs a home near her doctor? If she’s really poor why does she have multiple houses, and if she’s not does this really affect her? I live in a neighborhood where “aren’t you afraid you’re going to get shot?” is the first thing outsiders ask me about where I’m from, and if Grandma has owned her mostly-unoccupied vacation house for any significant time I probably pay a lot more property tax than she does. You couldn’t trip over the limbo bar to gain my sympathy, it’s buried a few feet deep.
This is a tiny nod toward taxing the rich, but that’s all. It’s not significant or meaningful, it won’t do a lot, most of the housing stock in question even if returned to actual residents won’t make a dent in the astronomical cost of living in or anywhere near this city. But it’s a tiny step in the right direction – and watching how hysterical the moneyed class is about the rest of us asking for even the tiniest drop in the goddamned bucket we’re trying to fill without their help is telling.
Related
San Diego, CA
Annual Rock ’n’ Roll races bring 30,000 runners to San Diego streets
Skip to content
Contact Us
San Diego, CA
Dining Out — series Part 1: A look at the evolution of La Jolla’s restaurant scene
This is the first installment in a series of stories on the history of dining out in La Jolla, how it’s changed and how it continues to evolve.
It’s hard to imagine La Jolla without its restaurants, from the lines stretching down the block at The Taco Stand to the iconic views at George’s at the Cove.
But the way La Jollans eat and where has changed dramatically since the area’s founding in the 1800s.
In this first part of the new month-long series “Dining Out,” the La Jolla Light looks at local restaurants from the 1880s (when La Jolla was first developed and settled) to the early 1920s.
“La Jolla had very few people at that time,” according to local historian Carol Olten. “There weren’t a lot of restaurants, as far as we know.”
Olten said she gets information about La Jolla’s earliest days from the diaries of local pioneer Anson Mills.
“He kept track of where he went and what he did … but he did a lot of home cooking,” she said. “So when they went to a restaurant for dinner, it was a big occasion. It was something people mainly did on holidays or … a social occasion.”
One restaurant Mills would go to — believed to be one of the first in La Jolla — was Montezuma Cottage. Olten said it is believed to have opened in 1895 near the intersection of Prospect and Jenner streets.
Mills described the restaurant as a popular eating and gathering spot for locals and tourists, Olten said. He wrote an entry about a Thanksgiving dinner there with about 60 people.
Montezuma Cottage later became known as the Seaside Inn and Ocean View restaurant. It was torn down in 1931.
Culturally, eating at a restaurant was a more formal occasion at the time, Olten said.
“You didn’t go to a restaurant just to hang out with friends like you would today. It was purposeful then,” she said.
Around 1900, a restaurant known as the White Rabbit opened near the corner of Girard Avenue and Prospect Street. In addition to a rooftop garden, it featured a tea room, joining a national trend.
“Tea rooms went with the suffragette movement because in those days, [women] didn’t have a place to gather without an escort, so tea rooms started opening in hotels and women could go there and sit down and have a social tea or lunch,” Olten said. “La Jolla got in on the tail end of that thanks to [Green Dragon Colony founder] Anna Held and [La Jolla philanthropist] Ellen Browning Scripps.”
One of them, called The Cricket, opened in the early 1900s with white tablecloths. Olten said it was near what it is now Eddie V’s restaurant.
“It was originally part of the Green Dragon Colony … and was sold to a British woman named Daisy Mitchell,” she said. “It stayed a tea room for many years, and she kept a guest book that was decorated with reds and greens and had a medieval theme. So it was very British.”
Joining a trend toward more upscale dining, one of La Jolla’s “most well-established and well-known restaurants” opened in 1912 at 1227 Prospect St. The Brown Bear had “stylish, fashionable service and a menu to please the gods,” Olten said.
A house specialty was Welsh rabbit served in a silver chafing dish. The restaurant was in operation until 1941.
Several restaurants opened around 1915, about the same time as the Panama-California Exposition, a world’s fair-type event held in 1915-16 that brought 3.7 million people to San Diego.
One of La Jolla’s new restaurants, the Spindrift Inn, opened in 1916 and was considered a “last stop” out of town.
“Most restaurants at that time were located in the immediate Village area,” Olten said. “The one that was astray would have been the Spindrift Inn [in La Jolla Shores]. This was in the very early days of automobiles, so not very many people had cars, but those that did would … drive their cars and the last stop before you got out of town was Spindrift Inn.”
The Spindrift Inn later became The Marine Room, which still stands.
Olten said the restaurant was operated by the Hannay family for about 20 years. Their “rambunctious” fox terrier, Jiggs, would roam the dining room.
Another Expo-era restaurant was the Dining Car, which operated in an old trolley car parked near Goldfish Point. Dinner was $2 per person. It burned down on Halloween night in 1923.
Next installment: With new hotels being built in La Jolla in the 1920s came new hotel restaurants. But later, World War II would have an impact on La Jollans and San Diegans in general and on where and how they ate. ♦
-
North Carolina2 minutes agoFormer North Carolina officer charged in beating caught on doorbell camera video
-
North Dakota4 minutes agoNorth Dakota Attorney General’s Office issues a warning on asphalt-paving scams
-
Ohio10 minutes agoOhio blogger The Rooster arrested at Statehouse for online harassment
-
Oklahoma17 minutes agoCity leaders break ground on MAPS 4 multipurpose stadium in downtown Oklahoma City
-
Oregon20 minutes agoFBI Special Agent Bobby Gutierrez named Freedom 250 Hometown Hero in Oregon
-
Pennsylvania25 minutes agoPennsylvania House approves bill to restrict cellphones in schools
-
Rhode Island32 minutes agoRhode Island Senate approves bill requiring staffed lanes alongside self-checkout
-
South-Carolina34 minutes agoSouth Carolina early voting surges ahead of primary election