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
Disclosure-shy developers draw hand-slap ethics fine
Three-day filing deadlines stretched three weeks by pro-tax housing campaign
From Yes on A website
As a torrent of cash from out-of-town developers gushed into the campaign coffers of a San Diego ballot proposition ostensibly meant to boost low-cost housing with a property tax hike, proponents delayed disclosing to the city's ethics commission six $10,000-plus corporate donations until last November 2, the day before the vote.
So says a stipulation regarding the case, approved April 15 and posted online by the commission.
"In order to provide the public with readily accessible information concerning the sources of funding to committees formed to support and oppose City candidates and measures, [San Diego ethics law] requires such committees to include the text 'Funding details at www.sandiego.gov/donors' on or during its campaign advertisements,” the document says.
City law "also requires that, within three business days of receiving $10,000 (in the aggregate) or more from a single contributor, these committees send a notification email to the Ethics Commission with the name and identification number of the committee; the name of the contributor; and if applicable, the contributor's identification number."
"This information is then posted on the Ethics Commission's website so the public can access it via the website address provided on, or during... campaign advertisements," says the document. The agreement levied a mere $750 fine against a committee calling itself Yes on Measure A – Homes for San Diegans to atone for the disclosure violations.
According to the stipulation, the penalty was low in part because the Yes on A committee filed on-time disclosures required by state law with the city clerk's office. The Yes on A group also "fully cooperated with the Ethics Commission investigation," per the stipulation.
Requiring a two-thirds vote to raise property taxes through 2068, Measure A already faced a formidable fight for approval even before an October 1 Union-Tribune editorial condemned the proposal.
"Given that such housing costs on average more than $400,000 per unit — and that only a small percentage of the needy would actually get shelter if the measure passed — this is an extravagantly expensive and underwhelming approach to a problem that has much cheaper solutions," the paper opined.
Though opposed by many locals, a bevy of developers from across the country opened their pocketbooks for the cause, though word of their later contributions didn't make it to the ethics commission, and hence the general public, until the campaign was virtually over, the stipulation shows.
The six donations cited by the ethics commission document came from Century Housing Corporation of Los Angeles ($20,000, October 9), Raymond James and Associates, Inc. of St. Petersburg, Florida (October 15, $10,000), Wakeland Housing and Development Co, San Diego ($35,000, October 16), Boston Capital Corporate, Boston, Massachusetts ($25,000, October 19), Mercy Housing Inc., Denver, Colorado ($50,000, October 19), and Suffolk Construction Company, Inc., Boston ($15,000, October 20.)
San Diego ethics law dictates that contribution dates, sources, and amounts be communicated to the commission within three days, but the required disclosures of all six of the October donations cited were withheld until November 2.
Here's something you might be interested in.
Disclosure-shy developers draw hand-slap ethics fine
Three-day filing deadlines stretched three weeks by pro-tax housing campaign
Disclosure-shy developers draw hand-slap ethics fine
Three-day filing deadlines stretched three weeks by pro-tax housing campaign
From Yes on A website
As a torrent of cash from out-of-town developers gushed into the campaign coffers of a San Diego ballot proposition ostensibly meant to boost low-cost housing with a property tax hike, proponents delayed disclosing to the city's ethics commission six $10,000-plus corporate donations until last November 2, the day before the vote.
So says a stipulation regarding the case, approved April 15 and posted online by the commission.
"In order to provide the public with readily accessible information concerning the sources of funding to committees formed to support and oppose City candidates and measures, [San Diego ethics law] requires such committees to include the text 'Funding details at www.sandiego.gov/donors' on or during its campaign advertisements,” the document says.
City law "also requires that, within three business days of receiving $10,000 (in the aggregate) or more from a single contributor, these committees send a notification email to the Ethics Commission with the name and identification number of the committee; the name of the contributor; and if applicable, the contributor's identification number."
"This information is then posted on the Ethics Commission's website so the public can access it via the website address provided on, or during... campaign advertisements," says the document. The agreement levied a mere $750 fine against a committee calling itself Yes on Measure A – Homes for San Diegans to atone for the disclosure violations.
According to the stipulation, the penalty was low in part because the Yes on A committee filed on-time disclosures required by state law with the city clerk's office. The Yes on A group also "fully cooperated with the Ethics Commission investigation," per the stipulation.
Requiring a two-thirds vote to raise property taxes through 2068, Measure A already faced a formidable fight for approval even before an October 1 Union-Tribune editorial condemned the proposal.
"Given that such housing costs on average more than $400,000 per unit — and that only a small percentage of the needy would actually get shelter if the measure passed — this is an extravagantly expensive and underwhelming approach to a problem that has much cheaper solutions," the paper opined.
Though opposed by many locals, a bevy of developers from across the country opened their pocketbooks for the cause, though word of their later contributions didn't make it to the ethics commission, and hence the general public, until the campaign was virtually over, the stipulation shows.
The six donations cited by the ethics commission document came from Century Housing Corporation of Los Angeles ($20,000, October 9), Raymond James and Associates, Inc. of St. Petersburg, Florida (October 15, $10,000), Wakeland Housing and Development Co, San Diego ($35,000, October 16), Boston Capital Corporate, Boston, Massachusetts ($25,000, October 19), Mercy Housing Inc., Denver, Colorado ($50,000, October 19), and Suffolk Construction Company, Inc., Boston ($15,000, October 20.)
San Diego ethics law dictates that contribution dates, sources, and amounts be communicated to the commission within three days, but the required disclosures of all six of the October donations cited were withheld until November 2.
Commentssociowings
This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.
April 19, 2021