Voters send strong Prop. A messages on housing

(A Strong Vote for More Sprawl)

The BIA worked hard getting this one shot down and they won. Pay attention to the rhetoric.

"Paul Tryon, the chief executive officer for the Building Industry Association of San Diego County, which fought the measure, said it is clear people want to take the time to complete a "balanced, thoughtful approach" to planning the region's future.

Tryon said they also want something done about the housing shortage and increasingly high prices. The county's unfolding new general plan aims to find a way to fill the need for more housing, he said, but the initiative ignored that issue".

In case there was any doubt...

The BIA helps put Sanders in office

Building industry Association-Builders Magazine, Jan, 06.

"The Solution – BIA Website and Crusader™
Preceding this important election, BIA dedicated a page on www.biasandiego.org to the election and utilized Crusader™ to communicate with industry employees. Designed to be an information resource for building industry employees, the webpage included links to each candidate’s website, new articles, up-to-date polling data, debate schedules and more. Utilizing Crusader™, BIA urged building industry employees to support Sanders and pro-business candidates in Districts 2 and 8 with their vote. Additionally, for the employees who wanted to do more, they were offered the opportunity to support Sanders by writing letters to the San Diego Union Tribune and participate in precinct walks."

Then there is the case of Gatlin Development, a real estate firm. According to the FPPC, between 1992 and 1994, the company made 107 campaign contributions to members of and candidates for city council and the board of supervisors, along with other politicians. At the time, the contribution limit was $250. Most of the contributions from Gatlin employees and their spouses, along with members, relatives, and business associates of Gatlin's law firm, were for $250. When the word of the generosity got around, chief executive Frank Gatlin received calls from other politicians asking assistance in fund-raising, according to the fair practices commission.
Frank Gatlin reimbursed his employees for the gifts. Since the practice persisted for a year and a half, the FPPC said it "indicates a pattern of laundering activity, rather than an isolated incident." Gatlin and the law firm were fined $420,000. The FPPC referred the matter to Pfingst, who kicked it to the city attorney's office. They wouldn't touch it.
Both cases "should have been prosecuted as criminal cases," says former DA Ed Miller. "A lot of prosecutors don't want to make waves with people who have a lot of clout." But making such cases criminal would be a "significant deterrent" to campaign money laundering, says Miller.
And that's the point. For many years, there have been very few deterrents to such activities. Deputy District Attorney Rupert Linley remembers being told, when he was transferred out of the DA's environmental unit in 1997, "The DA's office wanted to be more business-friendly." That's one reason he opposed Pfingst's reelection bid. Linley says that Dumanis "wants strict enforcement."

There are multiple examples of the symbiotic relationship of politicians and businesses wanting favors. In mid-2000, the locally based Corky McMillin Companies won the contract for development of the former Naval Training Center over a larger, much better-financed, out-of-town company that had been recommended by a special blue-ribbon selection committee. According to Save Our NTC Inc. McMillin got $1 billion of assets for a few dollars, as well as tax breaks and subsidies of more than $100 million. Records show that the McMillin firm donated heavily to local politicians.
In 1972, the city had voted a 30-foot height limit on coastal buildings. That cramped McMillin's style. So the city attorney's office came up with an -- er, uh -- novel interpretation: The limitation did not apply to NTC because the land was in federal hands when the citizenry voted in the limitation. Shockingly, both Superior Court and the Fourth Appellate District bought into this -- er, uh -- bizarre argument.