Letter from the City Attorney’s Office

Readers of your December 25 cover story “Taxi Driver” were shortchanged of information about the case, and so may not understand why the City Attorney’s Office decided to dismiss charges against a taxi passenger accused of battering his driver.

The missing information is the account of an independent witness. His statement to San Diego Harbor Police tends to corroborate the passenger’s contention that he struck the taxi driver in self-defense.

In my email communications with one of your writers, I emphasized the importance of this witness, whom I described as “the only independent witness” to the events.

Yet for some reason, that sentence was excised from my published remarks. The sentence preceding it was published. The sentence following it was published. And in between appeared the phrase “Braun continued:”

Your writer assured me that he did not consciously delete that sentence. But whether it was a conscious choice or an unconscious choice, it was the wrong choice. Readers of your 3,200-word article would not have been inconvenienced by 18 additional words.

The witness is a hotel security guard who came upon the incident as it was unfolding. He did not see the taxi window being broken or any punches thrown.

What follows is from the police report. It has been edited solely to provide necessary punctuation and to conceal identities.

(The security guard) stated as he was walking up the stairs toward the incident he heard (the passenger) make numerous statements like, “Quit following me,” “Stop trying to grab me,” and “Stay away from me.” (The security guard) said (the taxi driver) told him that he was fine. (The security guard) told me that (the passenger) was willing to pay for the window but that (the taxi driver) told him, “No, you’re going to pay for everything.” (The security guard) said (the taxi driver) seemed fine until police arrived on the scene. (The security guard) stated that when police arrived (the taxi driver) started to induce vomiting, and it appeared like (the taxi driver) was faking it.

The City Attorney’s Office has a legal obligation to only prosecute cases where the evidence supports a reasonable expectation of a conviction at trial. Given this likely testimony, it was the opinion of our prosecutors that such an expectation was not reasonable.

• Gerry Braun
• Director of Communications
• San Diego City Attorney’s Office

The author responds:

Regarding the sole “independent witness” that Mr. Braun referred to in his letter, Mr. Braun failed to specify which witness he was referring to. If Mr. Braun had been specific by either naming the witness he was referring to, or indicating that it was the security guard, this mistake would not have occurred. The security guard Mr. Braun refers to in his letter, the one he failed to name in his official response, only witnessed the end of the altercation.

There was another independent witness: Alfred Banks. Banks saw the majority of the incident unfold, much longer than the unnamed security guard Mr. Braun refers to. Banks’s statement, which stated that he saw Singh chasing after Blackwell, was included in the story.

In addition, Mr. Braun writes that the security guard “did not see the taxi window being broken....” He failed to mention that Mr. Blackwell admitted to police that he, indeed, broke a window.

• Dorian Hargrove

Amazing. Honest. Authentic.

Why have you been hiding Siobhan Braun in the little fashion blurb (Street Style)? I love this woman. She has written the best feature story I have ever read from the Reader (“Thank You, Matthew McConaughey,” January 8 cover story).

After the first page of the article, I looked back just to see whom this amazing writer was. Turns out, I had to wait to the end. I loved her writing. Amazing. Honest. Authentic. Damn. I am a published writer, and am jealous of that amazing article.

Love the Reader. We look forward to getting it, and fight over who gets to read it first.

Siobhan, girl, you are just amazing. Cannot wait to read more!

• Katherine Behar
• University City

Totally Outraged

I’m calling about Blog Diego — “Hometown Horror” (January 8) — your nice little article about going through the Ozarks, and how the Klu Klux Klan is cleaning up the streets. Then there is a nice little threat to teachers from the Klan in 1868. And later on there is a quote from a philosopher about how the idea of having all the riffraff voting for their government is a crock.

I am totally outraged that you would put something like that in your magazine! The fact that people would blog stuff like that is one thing; the fact that you would print it in your magazine is something entirely different.

If you continue this, I will not be reading your magazine. I will not let these ideas be thought of as mainstream.

• Pat
• via voicemail

Such That

In reference to the correction of the equation from December’s cover, “I’m Judo Math Dude” (January 1), “m” was not the mistake — the equal sign was, since “m” was what was being considered. There should have been a colon, which means “such that.”

• Justin Sandburg
• Valencia Park

Push for Print

I’m just wondering why your online article about the Desert Line and Jablonski (News Ticker, January 6: “Desert Line Deal Derails”) wasn’t printed in the hard copy that came out today (January 8).

I’m interested because it means my son may or may not have a job, and they also owe me money. It would have been nice if Dorian Hargrove had pushed for the actual printing of this thing.

The only other thing I can think of is that possible is that Pacific Imperial Railroad might come up with the money at the last second.

• Scheuerman
• via email

Five Five-Star Films

I visited San Diego this week and found the way your website listed the theatres and neighborhoods to be the best I’ve seen anywhere. It made it so easy for me to find a film I was looking for and navigate to the theatre. Really excellent!

However, I then made the mistake of reading a few of the reviews. I feel terribly sorry for your reviewers. Granted, this may not have been the best year in decades for film, but is there anything they enjoyed or thought was worth watching? It must be a terrible ordeal for them to slog to the movies.

Could you share with me five or so films that they have liked over the past century?

• Jon Muir
• Westlake Village, CA

Five-star reviews are available online at sdreader.com/movies/archives, where you can search by star rating, year of release, MPAA rating, and/or reviewer.

• — Editor

The Right to Care for Themselves

Re: “I Make 300 Cups of Coffee Every Day. I Get $9 an Hour Plus Tips,” December 18 cover story.

Seventy-six years have passed since the establishment of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, which set the Federal minimum wage at 25 cents per hour. In 2014, the Federal minimum wage is now $7.25. In today’s overpriced economy with inflation prices soaring, it’s puzzling that increasing the minimum wage continues to be a struggle, especially given the high number of individuals and families living in poverty, many dependent upon social service programs to live sustainably.

If individuals were paid living wages throughout the year they would not be forced to rely upon taxpayers to pay for social service programs to help them survive. In San Diego alone, the total number of individuals and families living below the federal poverty level totaled over 209,000 individuals, including more than 64,000 children (Poverty and Homelessness, 2014).

Those who oppose raising both federal and local minimum wages, whatever their justification may be, are preventing millions of American’s from rising above poverty. In 2010, 46.2 million people lived below the official poverty level, earning at or below $9,750 to $12,187 per year.

So, what happens when the minimum wage does increase? Study after study shows that increasing the minimum wage has minimal effect on unemployment rates and could generate over $22 billion dollars in economic activity using the recommended federal minimum wage threshold of $10.10 per hour. No matter how you try to justify your reasoning, no one can justify someone living in poverty. So why, for the 10.5 million minimum wage earners who are living in poverty, is this acceptable in today’s overpriced economy?

The face of the minimum wage earner has changed as well. It is not the teenager who messes up your order at your local McDonald’s. It is a father or a mother who works tirelessly to make ends meet and put food on the table for their growing children. In fact, according to census data from the Economic Policy Institute, those most affected by minimum wages are adults, mostly in their 40s, and many supporting families.

Most individuals earning minimum wage do not earn enough annually to meet basic living expenses. As one research institution discovered, “19 percent of all full-time, year-round employees in the City of San Diego, earned less than $25,000 in 2013, well below the $27,655 a single person needs live sufficiently” (Center on Policy Initiatives, 2014, p. 3). Current studies indicate that the high cost of living in San Diego, which is 29.2 percent higher than the nation, will require individuals to earn more than $10 per hour to meet basic living expenses, as the average cost of a one-bedroom apartment is $1,032 per month (Center on Policy Initiatives, 2014).

San Diego’s City Council made valiant efforts to increase local wages through the Earned Sick Leave and Minimum Wage Ordinance, which was introduced by former City Council President, Todd Gloria, July of 2014. The initial proposal was set to increase local minimum wages to $13.09, but after Mayor Kevin Falconer vetoed the Council’s initial proposal, the Council adjusted the minimum wage rate to $11.50 per hour.

Unfortunately, the council’s efforts to increase wages were compromised when a deceitful referendum campaign prevented the ordinance from taking effect, forcing the council to place this initiative on the 2016 ballot.

Under the adjusted ordinance, if enacted, the minimum wage will be raised to $11.50 per hour beginning January 1, 2017, and will increase each year thereafter to adjust as inflation rates increase. Currently, California’s statewide minimum wage is $9 per hour, and is scheduled to increase to $10 per hour beginning January 2016.

So, now the power is in the hands of San Diego voters. This is the opportunity to help thousands of San Diego individuals make living wages and support their families without having to become reliant on government programs. Raising the minimum wage alone will not be the catch-all, but will set in motion the opportunity for these individuals and families to have the ability to realize their potential. When opportunity presents, it is remarkable how the human spirit is lifted.

When a single mother is no longer worried about putting food on the table or providing stable housing, perhaps then she can think about pursuing higher education. By increasing the minimum wage, reliance upon government assistance will be greatly reduced. University of California, Berkeley, found that increasing the minimum wage over $10 could reduce enrollment in SNAP (formally food stamps), by 3.6 million people, saving American taxpayers over $4.6 billion a year (Center on Poverty and Inequality, 2014). The importance of raising the minimum wage would boost pay scales for these low-wage workers, ultimately increasing their ability to achieve self-sufficiency and help them attain financial independence (Center on Poverty and Inequality, 2014).

As one of the nation’s finest cities, please vote favorably for the Earned Sick Leave and Minimum Wage Ordinance set to appear on the 2016 ballot. Increasing minimum wages in today’s economy is a fair trade for the high cost of living, and must be a priority to ensure economic self-sufficiency for individuals and families. By ensuring living wages, you will be giving hardworking individuals the right to care for themselves without being forced to rely upon government assistance to survive.

• Laura Mendozs
• Serra Mesa