Here's something you might be interested in.
Ask a Hipster — Advice you didn't know you needed
Big Screen — Movie commentary
Blurt — Music's inside track
Booze News — San Diego spirits
Classical Music — Immortal beauty
Classifieds — Free and easy
Cover Stories — Front-page features
Drinks All Around — Bartenders' drink recipes
Excerpts — Literary and spiritual excerpts
Feast! — Food & drink reviews
Feature Stories — Local news & stories
Fishing Report — What’s getting hooked from ship and shore
From the Archives — Spotlight on the past
Golden Dreams — Talk of the town
The Gonzo Report — Making the musical scene, or at least reporting from it
Letters — Our inbox
Movies@Home — Local movie buffs share favorites
Movie Reviews — Our critics' picks and pans
Musician Interviews — Up close with local artists
Neighborhood News from Stringers — Hyperlocal news
News Ticker — News & politics
Obermeyer — San Diego politics illustrated
Outdoors — Weekly changes in flora and fauna
Overheard in San Diego — Eavesdropping illustrated
Poetry — The old and the new
Reader Travel — Travel section built by travelers
Reading — The hunt for intellectuals
Roam-O-Rama — SoCal's best hiking/biking trails
San Diego Beer — Inside San Diego suds
SD on the QT — Almost factual news
Sheep and Goats — Places of worship
Special Issues — The best of
Street Style — San Diego streets have style
Surf Diego — Real stories from those braving the waves
Theater — On stage in San Diego this week
Tin Fork — Silver spoon alternative
Under the Radar — Matt Potter's undercover work
Unforgettable — Long-ago San Diego
Unreal Estate — San Diego's priciest pads
Your Week — Daily event picks
Too Cute by Half
"If the veto were to be overridden, what would the implication be in respect to the ballot?" asked District 1 councilmember Sherri Lightner during Tuesday morning's special meeting.
"It would be placed on the ballot," interjected council president Ben Hueso.
"Actually, it could not be [put on the ballot]," said assisstant city attorney Mary Jo Lanzafame.
The exchange between councilmembers and the assistant city attorney occurred as the council deliberated whether it should override the mayor's veto to place an ordinance on November's ballot to construct a new city hall. Yet, despite the outcome, as was evident in the response from Lanzafame, the deadline for ballot submissions expired in early August and the item was already dead.
The dialogue indicated confusion as to why the mayor objected to placing the ordinance on the ballot and allowing voters to decide the fate of a new city hall.
"This new city hall project was taken off the ballot,” explained councilmember DeMaio, “because a sales tax proposition was placed on the ballot. Let's be honest about that.”
DeMaio accused city officials — Mayor Sanders — of "operating too cute by half." During his comments, the fiscal conservative also refuted the mayor's reasoning for his veto by stating that the developer — or the city — lacked money to adequately fund a campaign.
"You're not taking this off because you don't have enough money for political campaigns. You're taking this off because you're afraid that the public has already come to a judgment and would vote it down."
DeMaio then offered a motion to forgo the override and asked that the mayor return with another option in addressing the city's office-space needs, besides a new city hall.
The motion did not receive any support, and the council moved on to the next item on the agenda.
Here's something you might be interested in.
Too Cute by Half
Too Cute by Half
"If the veto were to be overridden, what would the implication be in respect to the ballot?" asked District 1 councilmember Sherri Lightner during Tuesday morning's special meeting.
"It would be placed on the ballot," interjected council president Ben Hueso.
"Actually, it could not be [put on the ballot]," said assisstant city attorney Mary Jo Lanzafame.
The exchange between councilmembers and the assistant city attorney occurred as the council deliberated whether it should override the mayor's veto to place an ordinance on November's ballot to construct a new city hall. Yet, despite the outcome, as was evident in the response from Lanzafame, the deadline for ballot submissions expired in early August and the item was already dead.
The dialogue indicated confusion as to why the mayor objected to placing the ordinance on the ballot and allowing voters to decide the fate of a new city hall.
"This new city hall project was taken off the ballot,” explained councilmember DeMaio, “because a sales tax proposition was placed on the ballot. Let's be honest about that.”
DeMaio accused city officials — Mayor Sanders — of "operating too cute by half." During his comments, the fiscal conservative also refuted the mayor's reasoning for his veto by stating that the developer — or the city — lacked money to adequately fund a campaign.
"You're not taking this off because you don't have enough money for political campaigns. You're taking this off because you're afraid that the public has already come to a judgment and would vote it down."
DeMaio then offered a motion to forgo the override and asked that the mayor return with another option in addressing the city's office-space needs, besides a new city hall.
The motion did not receive any support, and the council moved on to the next item on the agenda.
Comments