-
-
Scott Peters is the incumbent, having served as Representative since 2013. Peters has often touted himself as independent and has a mixed record on progressive issues.
Peters is an environmental lawyer by trade and served on the San Diego City Council before his election to Congress. He supports women’s rights and reproductive choice, including abortion rights, and LGBTQ equality. He is endorsed by Planned Parenthood Action Fund, NARAL, and Human Rights Campaign. He is also a member of the Gun Violence Prevention Task Force and called for laws to toughen background checks and bans on high capacity magazines and assault-style weapons. While he does not support the Green New Deal or Medicare for All, he has supported investing in renewable energy, protections for California’s Coastline, and introduced the "Build More Housing Near Transit Act.”
After the 2010 census redistricting, the district began to slowly trend towards Democrats. Peters narrowly won this race in 2012 and 2014 against a Republican, but in 2016 and 2018 won by comfortable margins. This is now a safe Democratic seat, and constituents deserve strong progressive representation.
Peters is being challenged by Nancy Casady (D), a progressive activist who is running on a Green New Deal platform, however, according to our analysis, she has been unable to mount a viable challenge to Peters, given her lack of fundraising and partner endorsements. We look forward to supporting a viable challenge to Peters in the future.
Two other challengers have qualified for the ballot: Jim DeBello (R) and Ryan Cunningham (NPP). Given the fact that Peters is infinitely preferable to a Republican occupying this seat and his Democratic challenger isn’t viable, we believe Peters is the strongest candidate for this office.
Last updated: 2023-04-05Scott Peters
Scott Peters is the incumbent, having served as Representative since 2013. Peters has often touted himself as independent and has a mixed record on progressive issues.
Scott Peters is the incumbent, having served as Representative since 2013. Peters has often touted himself as independent and has a mixed record on progressive issues.
Peters is an environmental lawyer by trade and served on the San Diego City Council before his election to Congress. He supports women’s rights and reproductive choice, including abortion rights, and LGBTQ equality. He is endorsed by Planned Parenthood Action Fund, NARAL, and Human Rights Campaign. He is also a member of the Gun Violence Prevention Task Force and called for laws to toughen background checks and bans on high capacity magazines and assault-style weapons. While he does not support the Green New Deal or Medicare for All, he has supported investing in renewable energy, protections for California’s Coastline, and introduced the "Build More Housing Near Transit Act.”
After the 2010 census redistricting, the district began to slowly trend towards Democrats. Peters narrowly won this race in 2012 and 2014 against a Republican, but in 2016 and 2018 won by comfortable margins. This is now a safe Democratic seat, and constituents deserve strong progressive representation.
Peters is being challenged by Nancy Casady (D), a progressive activist who is running on a Green New Deal platform, however, according to our analysis, she has been unable to mount a viable challenge to Peters, given her lack of fundraising and partner endorsements. We look forward to supporting a viable challenge to Peters in the future.
Two other challengers have qualified for the ballot: Jim DeBello (R) and Ryan Cunningham (NPP). Given the fact that Peters is infinitely preferable to a Republican occupying this seat and his Democratic challenger isn’t viable, we believe Peters is the strongest candidate for this office.
Scott Peters
Scott Peters is the incumbent, having served as Representative since 2013. Peters has often touted himself as independent and has a mixed record on progressive issues.
City of Chula Vista
Not in City of Chula Vista? Click here to choose your customized guide.
-
-
Scott Peters is the incumbent, having served as Representative since 2013. Peters has often touted himself as independent and has a mixed record on progressive issues.
Peters is an environmental lawyer by trade and served on the San Diego City Council before his election to Congress. He supports women’s rights and reproductive choice, including abortion rights, and LGBTQ equality. He is endorsed by Planned Parenthood Action Fund, NARAL, and Human Rights Campaign. He is also a member of the Gun Violence Prevention Task Force and called for laws to toughen background checks and bans on high capacity magazines and assault-style weapons. While he does not support the Green New Deal or Medicare for All, he has supported investing in renewable energy, protections for California’s Coastline, and introduced the "Build More Housing Near Transit Act.”
After the 2010 census redistricting, the district began to slowly trend towards Democrats. Peters narrowly won this race in 2012 and 2014 against a Republican, but in 2016 and 2018 won by comfortable margins. This is now a safe Democratic seat, and constituents deserve strong progressive representation.
Peters is being challenged by Nancy Casady (D), a progressive activist who is running on a Green New Deal platform, however, according to our analysis, she has been unable to mount a viable challenge to Peters, given her lack of fundraising and partner endorsements. We look forward to supporting a viable challenge to Peters in the future.
Two other challengers have qualified for the ballot: Jim DeBello (R) and Ryan Cunningham (NPP). Given the fact that Peters is infinitely preferable to a Republican occupying this seat and his Democratic challenger isn’t viable, we believe Peters is the strongest candidate for this office.
Last updated: 2023-04-05
-
Builds Power
Builds Progress
Builds Representation -
Assemblymember Lorena Gonzalez is the daughter of an immigrant farmworker and a nurse who grew up in North San Diego County. She is the incumbent, having served in this position since 2013.
In the State Assembly, Rep. Gonzalez has authored numerous pieces of legislation with significant progressive victories every year she has served in office. Rep. Gonzalez chairs the powerful Appropriations Committee and heads the California Latino Legislative Caucus. She also serves on the Judiciary and Labor and Employment Committees, Chairs the Committee on Women in the Workplace and serves on numerous other select committees. Prior to her election to the State Assembly, she served Secretary-Treasurer for the San Diego and Imperial Counties Labor Council, AFL-CIO.
Assemblymember Gonzalez is being challenged by Lincoln Pickard ( R), and John J. Vogel (R). In 2019 Gonzalez scored a 98 out of 100 on Courage Score, our annual analysis of a legislator's progressive voting records, showing she has consistently shown great courage advocating for the needs of constituents and facing down corporate lobbyists and interest groups that exploit Californians.
According to our analysis, Assemblymember Gonzalez is the strongest choice for progressive leadership in office.
Last updated: 2023-04-05Lorena Gonzalez
Assemblymember Lorena Gonzalez is the daughter of an immigrant farmworker and a nurse who grew up in North San Diego County. She is the incumbent, having served in this position since 2013.
In the State Assembly, Rep. Gonzalez has authored numerous pieces of legislation with significant progressive victories every year she has served in office. Rep. Gonzalez chairs the powerful Appropriations Committee and heads the California Latino Legislative Caucus. She also serves on the Judiciary and Labor and Employment Committees, Chairs the Committee on Women in the Workplace and serves on numerous other select committees. Prior to her election to the State Assembly, she served Secretary-Treasurer for the San Diego and Imperial Counties Labor Council, AFL-CIO.
Assemblymember Gonzalez is being challenged by Lincoln Pickard ( R), and John J. Vogel (R). In 2019 Gonzalez scored a 98 out of 100 on Courage Score, our annual analysis of a legislator's progressive voting records, showing she has consistently shown great courage advocating for the needs of constituents and facing down corporate lobbyists and interest groups that exploit Californians.
According to our analysis, Assemblymember Gonzalez is the strongest choice for progressive leadership in office.
Assemblymember Lorena Gonzalez is the daughter of an immigrant farmworker and a nurse who grew up in North San Diego County. She is the incumbent, having served in this position since 2013.
In the State Assembly, Rep. Gonzalez has authored numerous pieces of legislation with significant progressive victories every year she has served in office. Rep. Gonzalez chairs the powerful Appropriations Committee and heads the California Latino Legislative Caucus. She also serves on the Judiciary and Labor and Employment Committees, Chairs the Committee on Women in the Workplace and serves on numerous other select committees. Prior to her election to the State Assembly, she served Secretary-Treasurer for the San Diego and Imperial Counties Labor Council, AFL-CIO.
Assemblymember Gonzalez is being challenged by Lincoln Pickard ( R), and John J. Vogel (R). In 2019 Gonzalez scored a 98 out of 100 on Courage Score, our annual analysis of a legislator's progressive voting records, showing she has consistently shown great courage advocating for the needs of constituents and facing down corporate lobbyists and interest groups that exploit Californians.
According to our analysis, Assemblymember Gonzalez is the strongest choice for progressive leadership in office.
Lorena Gonzalez
Assemblymember Lorena Gonzalez is the daughter of an immigrant farmworker and a nurse who grew up in North San Diego County. She is the incumbent, having served in this position since 2013.
In the State Assembly, Rep. Gonzalez has authored numerous pieces of legislation with significant progressive victories every year she has served in office. Rep. Gonzalez chairs the powerful Appropriations Committee and heads the California Latino Legislative Caucus. She also serves on the Judiciary and Labor and Employment Committees, Chairs the Committee on Women in the Workplace and serves on numerous other select committees. Prior to her election to the State Assembly, she served Secretary-Treasurer for the San Diego and Imperial Counties Labor Council, AFL-CIO.
Assemblymember Gonzalez is being challenged by Lincoln Pickard ( R), and John J. Vogel (R). In 2019 Gonzalez scored a 98 out of 100 on Courage Score, our annual analysis of a legislator's progressive voting records, showing she has consistently shown great courage advocating for the needs of constituents and facing down corporate lobbyists and interest groups that exploit Californians.
According to our analysis, Assemblymember Gonzalez is the strongest choice for progressive leadership in office.
-
Builds Power
Builds Progress
Builds Representation
-
Assemblymember Lorena Gonzalez is the daughter of an immigrant farmworker and a nurse who grew up in North San Diego County. She is the incumbent, having served in this position since 2013.
In the State Assembly, Rep. Gonzalez has authored numerous pieces of legislation with significant progressive victories every year she has served in office. Rep. Gonzalez chairs the powerful Appropriations Committee and heads the California Latino Legislative Caucus. She also serves on the Judiciary and Labor and Employment Committees, Chairs the Committee on Women in the Workplace and serves on numerous other select committees. Prior to her election to the State Assembly, she served Secretary-Treasurer for the San Diego and Imperial Counties Labor Council, AFL-CIO.
Assemblymember Gonzalez is being challenged by Lincoln Pickard ( R), and John J. Vogel (R). In 2019 Gonzalez scored a 98 out of 100 on Courage Score, our annual analysis of a legislator's progressive voting records, showing she has consistently shown great courage advocating for the needs of constituents and facing down corporate lobbyists and interest groups that exploit Californians.
According to our analysis, Assemblymember Gonzalez is the strongest choice for progressive leadership in office.
Last updated: 2023-04-05
Depending on where you live, you may have the below county-districted races on your ballot.
-
Builds Power
Builds Progress
Builds Representation -
Olga Diaz is a lifelong California resident and has lived in Escondido for over 10 years. According to campaign materials she is running for Board of Supervisors to use her unique understanding of the diverse needs of the community to advocate for environmental and social justice issues at the county level.
Diaz is a member of the Escondido City Council, which she does to apply her academic background in public administration and accounting to the city’s challenging issues of budgeting and priority setting. Diaz has collaborated with a variety of stakeholders and, as the first Latino elected to the City Council, has worked to put inclusive community relationships at the front of her local work. She has been instrumental in the Escondido Creek restoration project that is in progress, which demonstrates a dynamic focus on environmental protection, urban renewal, and public safety. As a member of the Board of Supervisors, Diaz would build on this experience to take actionable steps to improve the region's response to climate change, to produce more affordable housing, and to provide wrap-around services for individuals experiencing homelessness. As a citizen, Diaz has served on the Board of Directors for the Voice of San Diego, the Community Advisory Council for San Diego Gas & Electric, the California Coastal Commission, the CSU President’s Advisory Committee, and the San Diego Union Tribune Latino Advisory Board.
Diaz is running against Kristin Gaspar, who is the incumbent and has held the seat since 2016, as well as Terra Lawson-Remer. Diaz is the best progressive choice because of her experience in local government and her track record of working to be an effective consensus builder to get things done for constituents.
According to our analysis, Olga Diaz is the strongest choice for progressive leadership in office.
Last updated: 2023-04-05Olga Diaz
Olga Diaz is a lifelong California resident and has lived in Escondido for over 10 years. According to campaign materials she is running for Board of Supervisors to use her unique understanding of the diverse needs of the community to advocate for environmental and social justice issues at the county level.
Diaz is a member of the Escondido City Council, which she does to apply her academic background in public administration and accounting to the city’s challenging issues of budgeting and priority setting. Diaz has collaborated with a variety of stakeholders and, as the first Latino elected to the City Council, has worked to put inclusive community relationships at the front of her local work. She has been instrumental in the Escondido Creek restoration project that is in progress, which demonstrates a dynamic focus on environmental protection, urban renewal, and public safety. As a member of the Board of Supervisors, Diaz would build on this experience to take actionable steps to improve the region's response to climate change, to produce more affordable housing, and to provide wrap-around services for individuals experiencing homelessness. As a citizen, Diaz has served on the Board of Directors for the Voice of San Diego, the Community Advisory Council for San Diego Gas & Electric, the California Coastal Commission, the CSU President’s Advisory Committee, and the San Diego Union Tribune Latino Advisory Board.
Diaz is running against Kristin Gaspar, who is the incumbent and has held the seat since 2016, as well as Terra Lawson-Remer. Diaz is the best progressive choice because of her experience in local government and her track record of working to be an effective consensus builder to get things done for constituents.
According to our analysis, Olga Diaz is the strongest choice for progressive leadership in office.
Olga Diaz is a lifelong California resident and has lived in Escondido for over 10 years. According to campaign materials she is running for Board of Supervisors to use her unique understanding of the diverse needs of the community to advocate for environmental and social justice issues at the county level.
Diaz is a member of the Escondido City Council, which she does to apply her academic background in public administration and accounting to the city’s challenging issues of budgeting and priority setting. Diaz has collaborated with a variety of stakeholders and, as the first Latino elected to the City Council, has worked to put inclusive community relationships at the front of her local work. She has been instrumental in the Escondido Creek restoration project that is in progress, which demonstrates a dynamic focus on environmental protection, urban renewal, and public safety. As a member of the Board of Supervisors, Diaz would build on this experience to take actionable steps to improve the region's response to climate change, to produce more affordable housing, and to provide wrap-around services for individuals experiencing homelessness. As a citizen, Diaz has served on the Board of Directors for the Voice of San Diego, the Community Advisory Council for San Diego Gas & Electric, the California Coastal Commission, the CSU President’s Advisory Committee, and the San Diego Union Tribune Latino Advisory Board.
Diaz is running against Kristin Gaspar, who is the incumbent and has held the seat since 2016, as well as Terra Lawson-Remer. Diaz is the best progressive choice because of her experience in local government and her track record of working to be an effective consensus builder to get things done for constituents.
According to our analysis, Olga Diaz is the strongest choice for progressive leadership in office.
Olga Diaz
Olga Diaz is a lifelong California resident and has lived in Escondido for over 10 years. According to campaign materials she is running for Board of Supervisors to use her unique understanding of the diverse needs of the community to advocate for environmental and social justice issues at the county level.
Diaz is a member of the Escondido City Council, which she does to apply her academic background in public administration and accounting to the city’s challenging issues of budgeting and priority setting. Diaz has collaborated with a variety of stakeholders and, as the first Latino elected to the City Council, has worked to put inclusive community relationships at the front of her local work. She has been instrumental in the Escondido Creek restoration project that is in progress, which demonstrates a dynamic focus on environmental protection, urban renewal, and public safety. As a member of the Board of Supervisors, Diaz would build on this experience to take actionable steps to improve the region's response to climate change, to produce more affordable housing, and to provide wrap-around services for individuals experiencing homelessness. As a citizen, Diaz has served on the Board of Directors for the Voice of San Diego, the Community Advisory Council for San Diego Gas & Electric, the California Coastal Commission, the CSU President’s Advisory Committee, and the San Diego Union Tribune Latino Advisory Board.
Diaz is running against Kristin Gaspar, who is the incumbent and has held the seat since 2016, as well as Terra Lawson-Remer. Diaz is the best progressive choice because of her experience in local government and her track record of working to be an effective consensus builder to get things done for constituents.
According to our analysis, Olga Diaz is the strongest choice for progressive leadership in office.
-
Builds Power
Builds Progress
Builds Representation
-
Olga Diaz is a lifelong California resident and has lived in Escondido for over 10 years. According to campaign materials she is running for Board of Supervisors to use her unique understanding of the diverse needs of the community to advocate for environmental and social justice issues at the county level.
Diaz is a member of the Escondido City Council, which she does to apply her academic background in public administration and accounting to the city’s challenging issues of budgeting and priority setting. Diaz has collaborated with a variety of stakeholders and, as the first Latino elected to the City Council, has worked to put inclusive community relationships at the front of her local work. She has been instrumental in the Escondido Creek restoration project that is in progress, which demonstrates a dynamic focus on environmental protection, urban renewal, and public safety. As a member of the Board of Supervisors, Diaz would build on this experience to take actionable steps to improve the region's response to climate change, to produce more affordable housing, and to provide wrap-around services for individuals experiencing homelessness. As a citizen, Diaz has served on the Board of Directors for the Voice of San Diego, the Community Advisory Council for San Diego Gas & Electric, the California Coastal Commission, the CSU President’s Advisory Committee, and the San Diego Union Tribune Latino Advisory Board.
Diaz is running against Kristin Gaspar, who is the incumbent and has held the seat since 2016, as well as Terra Lawson-Remer. Diaz is the best progressive choice because of her experience in local government and her track record of working to be an effective consensus builder to get things done for constituents.
According to our analysis, Olga Diaz is the strongest choice for progressive leadership in office.
Last updated: 2023-04-05
-
VOTE YES
Vote YES On Prop 13, School and College Facilities Bond
-
This proposition would provide $9 billion for desperately needed renovations to public preschools and grade schools throughout the state, and $6 billion for construction to community colleges, the Cal State system, and the UC system. This will allow the state of California to use tax revenue to pay for improvements that local communities cannot afford.
The funding would come from bonds the state would pay back over 35 years, totaling an estimated $26 billion, which includes $15 billion in principal and $11 billion in interest. This investment is well worth the costs. It takes money, after all, to ensure that students -- especially those in districts that can’t afford major capital improvement projects -- do not have to learn in dangerous environments.
The vast majority of Democrats in the state legislature support it, as does Gov. Newsom, and the only major opposition is a group called the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association. This is the group famous for destroying California’s school funding system in 1978 through another proposition, ironically one that was also dubbed Prop 13. The group spends most of its time lobbying to reduce tax rates. It has never shown any interest in supporting California’s children, at least if that means wealthy individuals or giant corporations would pay their fair share in taxes.
Critics of the measure have pointed out that the ballot measure’s language includes a provision that frees new multi-family developments around subway stops and bus stations from school impact fees. This provision will make it easier for developers to build apartment buildings within a half-mile of public transit but could also drive up the cost of new housing and take funds away from school districts across the state. Despite this provision, the measure is still supported by most education groups in the state, who believe the overall funding allocation to schools outweighs the impact of reduced funding to school districts located near transit hubs. 2020’s Prop 13 is worth the investment since it means children will soon be able to attend school in buildings that are retrofitted to withstand earthquakes and no longer have lead in their water.
We strongly recommend a YES vote on Prop 13.
Last updated: 2023-04-05This proposition would provide $9 billion for desperately needed renovations to public preschools and grade schools throughout the state, and $6 billion for construction to community colleges, the Cal State system, and the UC system. This will allow the state of California to use tax revenue to pay for improvements that local communities cannot afford.
The funding would come from bonds the state would pay back over 35 years, totaling an estimated $26 billion, which includes $15 billion in principal and $11 billion in interest. This investment is well worth the costs. It takes money, after all, to ensure that students -- especially those in districts that can’t afford major capital improvement projects -- do not have to learn in dangerous environments.
The vast majority of Democrats in the state legislature support it, as does Gov. Newsom, and the only major opposition is a group called the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association. This is the group famous for destroying California’s school funding system in 1978 through another proposition, ironically one that was also dubbed Prop 13. The group spends most of its time lobbying to reduce tax rates. It has never shown any interest in supporting California’s children, at least if that means wealthy individuals or giant corporations would pay their fair share in taxes.
Critics of the measure have pointed out that the ballot measure’s language includes a provision that frees new multi-family developments around subway stops and bus stations from school impact fees. This provision will make it easier for developers to build apartment buildings within a half-mile of public transit but could also drive up the cost of new housing and take funds away from school districts across the state. Despite this provision, the measure is still supported by most education groups in the state, who believe the overall funding allocation to schools outweighs the impact of reduced funding to school districts located near transit hubs. 2020’s Prop 13 is worth the investment since it means children will soon be able to attend school in buildings that are retrofitted to withstand earthquakes and no longer have lead in their water.
We strongly recommend a YES vote on Prop 13.
This proposition would provide $9 billion for desperately needed renovations to public preschools and grade schools throughout the state, and $6 billion for construction to community colleges, the Cal State system, and the UC system. This will allow the state of California to use tax revenue to pay for improvements that local communities cannot afford.
The funding would come from bonds the state would pay back over 35 years, totaling an estimated $26 billion, which includes $15 billion in principal and $11 billion in interest. This investment is well worth the costs. It takes money, after all, to ensure that students -- especially those in districts that can’t afford major capital improvement projects -- do not have to learn in dangerous environments.
The vast majority of Democrats in the state legislature support it, as does Gov. Newsom, and the only major opposition is a group called the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association. This is the group famous for destroying California’s school funding system in 1978 through another proposition, ironically one that was also dubbed Prop 13. The group spends most of its time lobbying to reduce tax rates. It has never shown any interest in supporting California’s children, at least if that means wealthy individuals or giant corporations would pay their fair share in taxes.
Critics of the measure have pointed out that the ballot measure’s language includes a provision that frees new multi-family developments around subway stops and bus stations from school impact fees. This provision will make it easier for developers to build apartment buildings within a half-mile of public transit but could also drive up the cost of new housing and take funds away from school districts across the state. Despite this provision, the measure is still supported by most education groups in the state, who believe the overall funding allocation to schools outweighs the impact of reduced funding to school districts located near transit hubs. 2020’s Prop 13 is worth the investment since it means children will soon be able to attend school in buildings that are retrofitted to withstand earthquakes and no longer have lead in their water.
We strongly recommend a YES vote on Prop 13.
CA Prop 13
This proposition would provide $9 billion for desperately needed renovations to public preschools and grade schools throughout the state, and $6 billion for construction to community colleges, the Cal State system, and the UC system.
Have questions about voting in San Diego County? Find out how to vote in San Diego County.
-
VOTE YES
Vote YES on Measure A
-
Both Measures A and B on the San Diego County March ballot deal with housing development in the county’s unincorporated areas. While Measure B is related to the future of a specific development -- the one that inspired both of these measures -- Measure A would address the approval process for all developments in the unincorporated lands around San Diego.
Dubbed by advocates as the “Save Our San Diego Countryside Measure,” Measure A would require a countywide vote on any major projects granted a General Plan amendment. (The county’s General Plan covers zoning and land use was last updated in 2012. Large housing developments generally require an amendment in order to proceed.) Developers rarely fare well in these kinds of public votes, but proponents of the measure believe residents should have a greater voice in any changes that involve building in the fire-prone areas in the outskirts of the county. They also note that the county government is too easily bought off by donations from the building industry and developers.
The opposition, unsurprisingly, comes primarily from those very people -- the building industry and developers. Opponents claim it’s being financed by the ultra wealthy and primarily designed to save properties like the Golden Door Spa, the luxury retreat funding the opposition to Measure B, from development despite the fact that over a dozen environmental groups support the measure. They reiterate the conservative claim that Measure A would stymie new housing projects due to the expense involved in putting anything before a public vote.
Developers often are irresponsible stewards of our responsibility to build and expand affordable housing. Measure A would ensure that the public's voice is heard when it comes to amending the General Plan, which impacts both affordable housing and safety. It would prevent elected officials from changing the General Plan without justifying those amendments to voters in order to appease developers. While it might be well-meaning to build more housing in an attempt to address the housing crisis, if it's done in high-risk areas where families may lose their homes and potentially their lives down the line, it is misguided -- as we've seen with the countless wildfires throughout the state that have devastated various communities in fire-risk areas.
Vote YES on Measure A.
Last updated: 2023-04-05Both Measures A and B on the San Diego County March ballot deal with housing development in the county’s unincorporated areas. While Measure B is related to the future of a specific development -- the one that inspired both of these measures -- Measure A would address the approval process for all developments in the unincorporated lands around San Diego.
Dubbed by advocates as the “Save Our San Diego Countryside Measure,” Measure A would require a countywide vote on any major projects granted a General Plan amendment. (The county’s General Plan covers zoning and land use was last updated in 2012. Large housing developments generally require an amendment in order to proceed.) Developers rarely fare well in these kinds of public votes, but proponents of the measure believe residents should have a greater voice in any changes that involve building in the fire-prone areas in the outskirts of the county. They also note that the county government is too easily bought off by donations from the building industry and developers.
The opposition, unsurprisingly, comes primarily from those very people -- the building industry and developers. Opponents claim it’s being financed by the ultra wealthy and primarily designed to save properties like the Golden Door Spa, the luxury retreat funding the opposition to Measure B, from development despite the fact that over a dozen environmental groups support the measure. They reiterate the conservative claim that Measure A would stymie new housing projects due to the expense involved in putting anything before a public vote.
Developers often are irresponsible stewards of our responsibility to build and expand affordable housing. Measure A would ensure that the public's voice is heard when it comes to amending the General Plan, which impacts both affordable housing and safety. It would prevent elected officials from changing the General Plan without justifying those amendments to voters in order to appease developers. While it might be well-meaning to build more housing in an attempt to address the housing crisis, if it's done in high-risk areas where families may lose their homes and potentially their lives down the line, it is misguided -- as we've seen with the countless wildfires throughout the state that have devastated various communities in fire-risk areas.
Vote YES on Measure A.
Both Measures A and B on the San Diego County March ballot deal with housing development in the county’s unincorporated areas. While Measure B is related to the future of a specific development -- the one that inspired both of these measures -- Measure A would address the approval process for all developments in the unincorporated lands around San Diego.
Dubbed by advocates as the “Save Our San Diego Countryside Measure,” Measure A would require a countywide vote on any major projects granted a General Plan amendment. (The county’s General Plan covers zoning and land use was last updated in 2012. Large housing developments generally require an amendment in order to proceed.) Developers rarely fare well in these kinds of public votes, but proponents of the measure believe residents should have a greater voice in any changes that involve building in the fire-prone areas in the outskirts of the county. They also note that the county government is too easily bought off by donations from the building industry and developers.
The opposition, unsurprisingly, comes primarily from those very people -- the building industry and developers. Opponents claim it’s being financed by the ultra wealthy and primarily designed to save properties like the Golden Door Spa, the luxury retreat funding the opposition to Measure B, from development despite the fact that over a dozen environmental groups support the measure. They reiterate the conservative claim that Measure A would stymie new housing projects due to the expense involved in putting anything before a public vote.
Developers often are irresponsible stewards of our responsibility to build and expand affordable housing. Measure A would ensure that the public's voice is heard when it comes to amending the General Plan, which impacts both affordable housing and safety. It would prevent elected officials from changing the General Plan without justifying those amendments to voters in order to appease developers. While it might be well-meaning to build more housing in an attempt to address the housing crisis, if it's done in high-risk areas where families may lose their homes and potentially their lives down the line, it is misguided -- as we've seen with the countless wildfires throughout the state that have devastated various communities in fire-risk areas.
Vote YES on Measure A.
San Diego, Measure A
Both Measures A and B on the San Diego County March ballot deal with housing development in the county’s unincorporated areas. While Measure B is related to the future of a specific development -- the one that inspired both of these measures -- Measure A would address the approval process for all developments in the unincorporated lands around San Diego.
Dubbed by advocates as the “Save Our San Diego Countryside Measure,” Measure A would require a countywide vote on any major projects granted a General Plan amendment. (The county’s General Plan covers zoning and land use was last updated in 2012. Large housing developments generally require an amendment in order to proceed.) Developers rarely fare well in these kinds of public votes, but proponents of the measure believe residents should have a greater voice in any changes that involve building in the fire-prone areas in the outskirts of the county. They also note that the county government is too easily bought off by donations from the building industry and developers.
The opposition, unsurprisingly, comes primarily from those very people -- the building industry and developers. Opponents claim it’s being financed by the ultra wealthy and primarily designed to save properties like the Golden Door Spa, the luxury retreat funding the opposition to Measure B, from development despite the fact that over a dozen environmental groups support the measure. They reiterate the conservative claim that Measure A would stymie new housing projects due to the expense involved in putting anything before a public vote.
Developers often are irresponsible stewards of our responsibility to build and expand affordable housing. Measure A would ensure that the public's voice is heard when it comes to amending the General Plan, which impacts both affordable housing and safety. It would prevent elected officials from changing the General Plan without justifying those amendments to voters in order to appease developers. While it might be well-meaning to build more housing in an attempt to address the housing crisis, if it's done in high-risk areas where families may lose their homes and potentially their lives down the line, it is misguided -- as we've seen with the countless wildfires throughout the state that have devastated various communities in fire-risk areas.
Vote YES on Measure A.
-
VOTE NO
Vote NO on Measure B
-
Both Measures A and B on the San Diego County March ballot deal with housing development in the county’s unincorporated areas. While Measure A is designed to increase public oversight and approval over any large development project in San Diego County, Measure B reaffirms the approval of a specific large development project called Newland Sierra by the San Diego County Board of Supervisors.
San Diego County’s Measure B would uphold the approval of Newland Sierra, a planned high density development just north of Escondido on land currently zoned as rural or semi-rural. The Newland Sierra project would build 2,135 homes on land previously zoned for 99 residences, as well as the development of about 2 million square feet of commercial space. In addition to approving the land rezoning, the San Diego County’s Board of Supervisors approved an amendment to the county’s development guidelines specifically for Newland Sierra.
The Supervisors have failed to set in place any long-term action plans on affordable housing or climate for the county, which is how Newland Sierra was approved with no affordable housing guarantees in part of the county identified by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection as an area of severe fire danger.
Proponents of Measure B argue that a legal agreement signed by the the developer of the project guarantees affordable housing be included in the project, and that the project will help alleviate the housing crisis in the area. Opponents of Measure B, have pointed out that the signed legal agreement can be changed at any time by the developer and is therefore not enforceable by the county or the public. This is a strong example of how developers are often irresponsible stewards of our responsibility to build and expand affordable housing, while making sure that this housing is built in areas safe from excessive wildfire danger.
We recommend a NO on Measure B.
Last updated: 2023-04-05Both Measures A and B on the San Diego County March ballot deal with housing development in the county’s unincorporated areas. While Measure A is designed to increase public oversight and approval over any large development project in San Diego County, Measure B reaffirms the approval of a specific large development project called Newland Sierra by the San Diego County Board of Supervisors.
San Diego County’s Measure B would uphold the approval of Newland Sierra, a planned high density development just north of Escondido on land currently zoned as rural or semi-rural. The Newland Sierra project would build 2,135 homes on land previously zoned for 99 residences, as well as the development of about 2 million square feet of commercial space. In addition to approving the land rezoning, the San Diego County’s Board of Supervisors approved an amendment to the county’s development guidelines specifically for Newland Sierra.
The Supervisors have failed to set in place any long-term action plans on affordable housing or climate for the county, which is how Newland Sierra was approved with no affordable housing guarantees in part of the county identified by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection as an area of severe fire danger.
Proponents of Measure B argue that a legal agreement signed by the the developer of the project guarantees affordable housing be included in the project, and that the project will help alleviate the housing crisis in the area. Opponents of Measure B, have pointed out that the signed legal agreement can be changed at any time by the developer and is therefore not enforceable by the county or the public. This is a strong example of how developers are often irresponsible stewards of our responsibility to build and expand affordable housing, while making sure that this housing is built in areas safe from excessive wildfire danger.
We recommend a NO on Measure B.
Both Measures A and B on the San Diego County March ballot deal with housing development in the county’s unincorporated areas. While Measure A is designed to increase public oversight and approval over any large development project in San Diego County, Measure B reaffirms the approval of a specific large development project called Newland Sierra by the San Diego County Board of Supervisors.
San Diego County’s Measure B would uphold the approval of Newland Sierra, a planned high density development just north of Escondido on land currently zoned as rural or semi-rural. The Newland Sierra project would build 2,135 homes on land previously zoned for 99 residences, as well as the development of about 2 million square feet of commercial space. In addition to approving the land rezoning, the San Diego County’s Board of Supervisors approved an amendment to the county’s development guidelines specifically for Newland Sierra.
The Supervisors have failed to set in place any long-term action plans on affordable housing or climate for the county, which is how Newland Sierra was approved with no affordable housing guarantees in part of the county identified by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection as an area of severe fire danger.
Proponents of Measure B argue that a legal agreement signed by the the developer of the project guarantees affordable housing be included in the project, and that the project will help alleviate the housing crisis in the area. Opponents of Measure B, have pointed out that the signed legal agreement can be changed at any time by the developer and is therefore not enforceable by the county or the public. This is a strong example of how developers are often irresponsible stewards of our responsibility to build and expand affordable housing, while making sure that this housing is built in areas safe from excessive wildfire danger.
We recommend a NO on Measure B.
San Diego, Measure B
Both Measures A and B on the San Diego County March ballot deal with housing development in the county’s unincorporated areas. While Measure A is designed to increase public oversight and approval over any large development project in San Diego County, Measure B reaffirms the approval of a specific large development project called Newland Sierra by the San Diego County Board of Supervisors.
San Diego County’s Measure B would uphold the approval of Newland Sierra, a planned high density development just north of Escondido on land currently zoned as rural or semi-rural. The Newland Sierra project would build 2,135 homes on land previously zoned for 99 residences, as well as the development of about 2 million square feet of commercial space. In addition to approving the land rezoning, the San Diego County’s Board of Supervisors approved an amendment to the county’s development guidelines specifically for Newland Sierra.
The Supervisors have failed to set in place any long-term action plans on affordable housing or climate for the county, which is how Newland Sierra was approved with no affordable housing guarantees in part of the county identified by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection as an area of severe fire danger.
Proponents of Measure B argue that a legal agreement signed by the the developer of the project guarantees affordable housing be included in the project, and that the project will help alleviate the housing crisis in the area. Opponents of Measure B, have pointed out that the signed legal agreement can be changed at any time by the developer and is therefore not enforceable by the county or the public. This is a strong example of how developers are often irresponsible stewards of our responsibility to build and expand affordable housing, while making sure that this housing is built in areas safe from excessive wildfire danger.
We recommend a NO on Measure B.
Customizing the Progressive Voters Guide for your location...
Customizing the Progressive Voters Guide for your location...