For the last few weeks I have been inundated with mailers and hit pieces in the special election to replace Nathan Fletcher as Fourth District San Diego County Supervisor. I have long admired San Diego City Councilmember Monica Montgomery-Steppe and have regretted the fact that I didn't have the chance to vote for her … until now. The mailers for Montgomery-Steppe in the current campaign have been positive, extolling her virtues and the things she's done for the people of San Diego. The mailers against her have been filled with veiled racist innuendi; the subliminal message, especially from the San Diego Police Officers' Association, is, "Monica Montgomery-Steppe is Black, and we all know all Black people want to 'defund the police.'" I didn't know who Janessa Goldbeck was before this campaign started, but even though the Police Officers' Association's campaign for her is nominally "independent," by refusing to disavow it she's essentially endorsing a racist attack on her African-American opponent, and she and her supporters (including the San Diego Democrats for Equality) should be ashamed of themselves. I just got this e-mail this morning from Doug Porter at Words & Deeds and he makes the case far better than I could about why Monica Montgomery-Steppe is the ONLY progressive choice in this election.
I Voted for Monica Montgomery-Steppe for Supervisor and You Should, Too
by Doug Porter • August 3, 2023
August 15 is the final date for the ongoing election to replace Nathan Fletcher on the San Diego County Board of Supervisors. If you live in District 4 (and most San Diego city residents do), consider it a moral imperative to mail, drop off, or vote in person for Council member Monica Montgomery-Steppe in the next two weeks.
This special election really is something special. Over the decades, we’ve seen plenty of candidates for local office disappoint when it comes to voting on issues that make a difference.
It’s funny - not funny - when issues of importance come up for consideration and those who ran for office spouting the bravado of being “for the people” cast their vote for causes supported by forces whose agenda includes “otherizing” much of the local citizenry.
When it comes to law and order, San Diego politicians are mostly weak in the knees in the face of any suggestion that might be interpreted as not being supportive enough of the law enforcement industrial complex.
For those of you unfamiliar with the inner workings of city government it may come as a surprise to learn that our police department, whose budget has never been cut, and whose officers got away with defying a common sense mandate for COVID vaccines, is in my opinion, on a “slow strike.”
While homeless encampments in all kinds of places are dismantled, the SDPD couldn’t take on an “unauthorized” rave under a freeway bridge recently. A phalanx of thirty or so officers showed up at city hall this week to support street cameras and license plate readers. And, in what has to be the ultimate middle finger waved at the public, the Chief of Police was photographed with a disfigured US flag in the background (banned by the LAPD) known to be used as a battle flag displayed by extremists like the ones who marched in Charlottesville in 2017.
Their ineffectiveness has been attributed to a shortage of personnel. That’s an excuse, and excuses are for losers. The best spin anybody can put on what’s happening is that officers are disillusioned by what wannabe authoritarians in politics call wokeness.
A few watered-down reforms have been enacted at the state government level. The policy of more prisons equals less crime is no longer in vogue. And pesky reporters keep finding things like bias, jail deaths, and the use of excessive force to share with the public.
Lest you think I’m making things up, today’s Union-Tribune editorial speaks to the shameful steamrolling of the Privacy Advisory Board as the city considered installing 500-ish street light surveillance cameras and license plate readers.
A year ago, the City Council unanimously approved establishing a new Privacy Advisory Board to assess the use and community impact of 300-plus city surveillance technologies, especially those used by police. The impetus for the board’s creation was the shock and anger that greeted the 2019 revelation that the network of about 3,000 cameras on streetlights the city had installed three years earlier — supposedly to monitor traffic and parking patterns — were actually sophisticated surveillance tools with cameras and microphones
So the cops lied by omission before, and dared anybody to oppose, monitor, or regulate a more robust technology. I know the arguments about surveillance technology and even agree on its value in disrupting the actions of street criminals. I also know the SDPD’s history, and think that anybody who trusts them on these sorts of issues is naive.
As a City Council member, Montgomery-Steppe has survived the subterfuge of those who think their sworn status obligates them to oppose or weaken changes and/or reforms that would make them accountable for their actions.
She’s played by the rules, been unfailingly polite, and open to dialogue. Montgomery-Steppe has persisted in seeking a better way to keep San Diegans safe and secure. She passed on an opportunity to go negative on the snails pace roll out of Prop B’s citizen police oversight in a recent interview.
"This is what changing a system looks like. This is what community governance looks like. Sometimes we have good community partners who are willing to help us move things along, sometimes we don't .... I am not thinking about my personal instant gratification and what the media's going to say about me. I'm thinking about 10 and 15 years from now, how can we stand up this board and give it a foundation upon which it can build?"
Now it’s payback time. Not that she did anything wrong. It’s just that reformers are a danger to the established order and must be vanquished. It is, of course, their First Amendment right to engage in the political process. And, as we have learned with the most recent indictment of the former president, their right to lie is also protected.
That constitutional protection doesn’t make what local gendarmes and prosecutors are doing right or ethical. But we should already know from past experience, those topics are of little concern to those types.
Various law enforcement related Independent Expenditure Committees have spent more than $100,000 to oppose Montgomery-Steppe with misleading and malicious propaganda. They’ve spent tens of thousands of dollars in support of the other Democrat in the contest, who they believe will bend to their will.
Three pages prior to today’s U-T editorial on SD technology adoption, see the headline: Richard Fischer, disgraced sheriff’s deputy jailed for sexual misconduct, released months early.
This is the same offender –after being sentenced to 44 months in jail– who was released ‘accidentally’ after serving only 5 months. Now he’s out again, proving that, when it comes to rapists, some cops are more equal than your ordinary sex offender,
So it’s not just the SDPD playing games with justice, it’s also the County Sheriffs. With Montgomery-Steppe as supervisor, we can all feel better knowing there’s somebody keeping watch on county cops.
We San Diegans have the opportunity to put a person of integrity on the County Board of Supervisors, whose power of the purse can dictate a better life for all San Diegans.
I voted. Have you?
***
Short Snips About the Candidates… Although Supervisor elections are technically non-partisan, they’re not.
The Democrats who have declared their candidacy are:
San Diego City Council Member Monica Montgomery-Steppe–
Website - Facebook
Two quick facts you need to know about Montgomery-Steppe.
She is a progressive and pragmatic Black woman who beat the local establishment’s choice, then-incumbent Council person Myrtle Cole in 2018.
The police unions in San Diego are scared to death about her desire for oversight and ability to wade through the copaganda to see the bigger picture about law and order.
Montgomery-Steppe: “Violence is not biological. It has not been solved with over-policing, and it has not been solved with more funding, and until we address the root causes of violence and crime, we will continue seeing the exact same issues in our city and in our systems.”
***
Vet Voice Foundation CEO Janessa Goldbeck
Website - Facebook
She’s an out and proud Ex-Marine who served during the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” era. Her first venture into electoral politics was a losing effort to replace Congresswoman Susan Davis.
Her candidacy is supported by a passel of big name Democrats, like Rep. Scott Peters. Unfortunately, she’s also going to be the beneficiary of a smear campaign funded by the law enforcement establishment. Will they (as an independent entity) say her Democratic opponent is supported by a global Jewish conspiracy (code word: George Soros)? Who knows? They’ve dipped their toes in that water before. Her claims of innocence (the Independent Expenditure excuse) ring hollow.
***
There are also two Republicans vying for D4 Supervisor.
Re-Open San Diego founder Amy Reichert
Website - Facebook
Reichert was soundly defeated (64.6% to 25.4%) by Nathan Fletcher in 2022. Her claim to fame was/is the assertion that voters supported her “common sense” approach to changing the direction of San Diego.
The fact that TV station KUSI has a crush on her should tell voters all they need to know about her stances.
***
Medically retired Marine veteran Paul McQuigg
Website & Facebook Not Available
He works for the Census bureau, collecting economic data. He thinks we are already in a recession, despite declining unemployment and inflation and an ascending stock market. (Reference: Dude, Where’s My Recession? by Paul Krugman)
His first suggestion in a Union-Tribune interview is a 500-bed inpatient psychiatric/drug abuse hospital dedicated to the homeless population in the county. Great stuff. Except what are those homeless humans supposed to do for the three to six years it takes to build a facility?
