By San Diego City Councilmember Donna Frye

Does anyone think it’s a good idea to increase the size of government with the city facing a ongoing budget crisis? Does it make sense to spend more taxpayer dollars to add another council district in light of all the unfunded public projects?

If you said no, you are in good company. The San Diego Police Officer’s Association, the League of Women Voters, the Clairemont Town Council, and the San Diego Chapter of the Sierra Club all oppose Proposition D.

Proposition D is a ballot measure that would require adding a ninth council district at a time when the taxpayers can least afford it, costing about $1 million annually, not including the election costs every four years. Despite what the proponents want you to believe, there is no free or “cost neutral” City Council district. Remember DROP? That was supposed to be “cost neutral” too. No matter how you spin it, adding a ninth Council seat will increase the size of government and cost you more money.

Proposition D would make the Strong Mayor form of government permanent, with proponents using rhetorical claims of more accountability. A permanent shift to Strong Mayor will not increase accountability; in fact, it will do just the opposite. Proposition D will ensure that the Mayor will never be required to make tough decisions in public and instead can continue the same closed-door decision making that goes on today. Direct public access to the Mayor will be forever limited, media access to departmental staff will continue to be filtered through the spin cycle of mayoral press people and staff responses to simple questions posed by Councilmembers will continue to take twice as long as before.

A No vote on Proposition D will restore the Mayor as the ninth vote and leader of the Council, voting in public and not behind the scenes. The current strong-Mayor system, where the Mayor’s staff works out of public view to line up five Council votes on a given issue, would end because it would be considered a collective concurrence which is illegal under the Brown Act, California’s Open Meeting Laws. A no vote puts an end to mayoral staff acting like paid lobbyists to get a majority Council vote.