Proposition 40 would force Californians with a net worth of more than $1 billion to pay a one-time 5 percent tax on their assets. The money would mainly go toward healthcare. 

For the latest Sacramento Report, Nadia Lathan asked San Diego’s legislative delegation if they support or oppose the measure. Most would not say, only state Sen. Catherine Blakespeare said she opposes it.

Competing pressures are at work. Democrats may generally support taxing extreme wealth, but some worry about the negative economic effects of a California-only wealth tax on businesses and tax revenue for the state. Others don’t want to alienate wealthy voters or donors or aren’t happy with the plan for spending the money collected.

Read the Sacramento Report here. 

A Socialist and a Conservative Walk Into Politifest 

At our Oct. 3 Politifest, it’s the Socialist ‘Stache versus the conservative constant in El Cajon city politics in a debate for the mayoral seat. 

Bill Wells has held onto the mayoral gavel since 2013 and proved to be an “electoral juggernaut,” writes our Jakob McWhinney. “Despite El Cajon becoming ever-more Democratic, he’s won every mayoral election by at least 40 points.”

But his politics, particularly when it comes to collaborating with immigration officials, have stirred up controversy that may have opened a window for his opponent, labor organizer Alexander Kraft. 

Read the full post here. 

VOSD Podcast: It’s Silly Season

It’s that time of year, when journalists, especially our commander in chief Scott Lewis, get really giddy over their U.S. Postal Service mailboxes. 

Candidates and interest groups start to fill these babies up with mailers that try their darndest to earn your vote. Your faithful podcast crew is here to help.

First up, an AI-generated graphic that fired shots at co-hosts Jakob McWhinney and Scott Lewis for something they never said. And how San Diego City Councilman Henry Foster lost his endorsement from the city firefighters union in the thick of a battle to keep his seat. 

Listen to the show here. 

Related: Scott Lewis wrote more about the Silly Season including the primary defining feature of it: Extreme Umbrage Taking, or EUT. That and more in this week’s Politics Report for members.

In Other News

• San Diego officials want to be the first in California to require warning signs on cryptocurrency ATMs to help protect people, especially seniors, from scams (Union-Tribune)
• Animal rights group PETA is asking the SDPD to replace the Department’s K-9 program with modern technology, after an officer-involved shooting in North Park injured a police dog. (CBS8)
• San Diego County officials warned doctors at the Otay Mesa Detention Center that they could face professional consequences if they continue to delay reporting suspected tuberculosis cases. (Union-Tribune)
• Lock up your wives! Metallica is performing in San Diego this upcoming May – the first time in a decade. (CBS 8)

The Morning Report was written by Naomi Granata and MacKenzie Elmer. It was edited by Andrea Sanchez-Villafaña and Scott Lewis.

The post Don’t Talk About the Billionaire Tax  appeared first on Voice of San Diego.

Of this cycle’s local races, it’s hard to come up with one that better captures our political zeitgeist than the contest for El Cajon mayor. Incumbent Bill Wells, a conservative whose support for local collaboration with federal immigration officials has spurred state challenges, faces outsider Alexander Kraft, a union organizer, political rookie and self-described socialist. 

On Saturday, Oct. 3, the two will debate at Voice of San Diego’s Politifest as the University of San Diego. 

Today’s political climate has been increasingly defined by deep-seated anger with the status quo. Across the country, socialists, most often aligned with the Democratic Socialists of America, have racked up victories, often relying on significant critiques of both parties.  

Still, those victories have mostly been reserved for the bluest of blue precincts. With this race, Kraft and his fellow ideological travelers hope to prove their message can resonate with voters outside of America’s liberal bastions.  

Kraft has positioned himself as a progressive warrior – though one outside of America’s political mainstream. He’s not a member of the Democratic party and is instead registered with California’s Peace and Freedom Party. He’s promised voters he’ll fight for a citywide minimum wage, a repeal of El Cajon’s anti-sanctuary city ordinance and expanded support and services for the city’s homeless residents.  

Mixed in with calls to improve city infrastructure, like roads, he’s also leaned into some of the issues of the day. In slick Instagram videos, Kraft has come out full force against the automated license plate reader cameras like Flock deployed by El Cajon. His affable demeanor, working-class background and leftist policy proposals have helped mobilize support of San Diego’s local DSA chapter.  

Wells stands as a stark foil. First elected to El Cajon’s City Council in 2008, he ascended to mayor in 2013 after a scandal took down his predecessor. Over the past three elections, he’s proved himself to be an electoral juggernaut. Despite El Cajon becoming ever-more Democratic, he’s won every mayoral election by at least 40 points.  

At the root of Wells’ lights-out electoral success is his pitch as the candidate of common-sense policies and fiscal responsibility. He touts El Cajon’s sizable budget reserves as evidence of his prudence and preaches the gospel of public safety, arguing a fully-staffed and operational police force is his number one responsibility. He has also supported a stricter approach to homelessness that requires treatment prior to delivering services.  

Perhaps his most high-profile battle has been over state laws dealing with immigrants. Wells spearheaded the adoption of an anti-sanctuary city ordinance and has pushed for El Cajon’s police force to collaborate on deportations with immigration officials.  

Who will El Cajon choose? A stalwart conservative, unafraid to stand up to Sacramento’s liberal order? Or a socialist change agent angling to upend El Cajon’s political balance? 

Get a sneak peek of the contest at Politifest. You’ll even be able to make your voice heard by voting on the winner of the debate. Get your tickets now! 

The post Only One Will Become Mayor of El Cajon appeared first on Voice of San Diego.

Our newsroom is preparing for our biggest event: Politifest Elections Showdown.

We’re hosting debates between candidates and conversations about some of the most pressing issues in our region.

We have mayoral debates for candidates in El Cajon, Chula Vista, National City and San Marcos. San Diego City Council candidates are also joining us.

Politifest is on Saturday, Oct. 3, with special satellite events on Friday, Oct. 2.

Click here for to the full schedule and more information.

Chismeando with Antonio Martinez

I’ll moderate a discussion with San Diego City Council District 8 candidate Antonio Martinez at 10 a.m. His opponent Gerardo Ramirez could not join us.

District 8 encompasses the communities of Barrio Logan, Logan Heights, Sherman Heights, Grant Hill, Nestor, Southcrest, Shelltown, San Ysidro and Otay Mesa. Councilmember Vivian Moreno currently represents the district but she is termed out.

Martinez has run twice before to represent the district. He is on the board of the San Ysidro School District and he previously worked for Rep. Juan Vargas.

Ramirez is Moreno’s chief of staff and has worked at the city for nine years. Both candidates are Democrats.

I recently watched a debate where both candidates made it clear they want to ensure residents of District 8 get their fair share of government services, and that they both believe City Hall needs to do better.

Martinez spoke about how the city needs to be more involved in the Tijuana sewage crisis. He wants to see more collaboration with the county to address homelessness.

The candidate also criticized his opponent for taking money from an individual who wants to open a landfill in Otay Mesa. Ramirez responded that he opposes the landfill. The contribution was made through an independent expenditure committee, which candidates can’t control.

Ramirez criticized Martinez, too. He brought up that the San Ysidro School District is, in simple terms, about to go broke. Our Jim Hinch has reported on the school district’s money troubles.

I expect this race will get spicier as the days go by.

One interesting thing about this race is the groups that have come out to support each candidate. Martinez has secured endorsements from elected officials, the union representing city firefighters and a key labor endorsement from the San Diego & Imperial Counties Labor Council.

Surprisingly, his former boss, Rep. Vargas, hasn’t endorsed in this race. No sé por qué.

Ramirez has secured endorsements from the largest labor union of city employees, unions representing carpenters and laborers, and the union representing San Diego police officers. Business is also behind him. The San Diego Regional Chamber of Commerce endorsed him, according to a post on their website. That endorsement is not listed on his website or on his Instagram account.

During the primary election, the Chamber found itself it hot water with many elected officials, labor groups and candidates who were upset that among the job posting the organization shares, there was one for positions with the GEO Group, a private company that operates immigration detention centers.

The Chamber issued a statement saying it was not affiliated with the hiring of immigration agents, and that it had a long-standing record of supporting immigration reform polies. That wasn’t enough for some like Rep. Vargas who said he was boycotting the organization.

I’m preparing for my discussion with Martinez. If you have any questions you’d like me to ask him during Politifest, you can email me at andrea.sanchez@voiceofsandiego.org.

Get your tickets for Politifest here!

More Chisme to Start Your Week

• Our City Hall reporter wrote about the San Diego City Council race in District 4 between incumbent Henry Foster and challenger Martha Abraham. Our editors also reported that the union representing city firefighters pulled its endorsement of Foster. We’re hosting a District 4 debate at Politifest. (As if you needed another reason to attend!)
• MacKenzie Elmer tried to understand why Supervisor Jim Desmond supported a study on cleaning the Tijuana River, but not the thing that would help pay for it. (I might as well mention we’re also holding a discussion about the county sales tax increase that would be for that work at Politifest.)
• Education reporter Jakob McWhinney wrote about a teacher who was recently awarded for her work, but that didn’t protect her job.

The post A Conversation with a D8 Candidate appeared first on Voice of San Diego.

It’s the third week of September during a big election year, which means that summer has ended and Silly Season has begun.

Silly Season has several signs. There’s the just plain weird stuff. Like this week we reported that the Lincoln Club had endorsed San Diego City Council candidate Martha Abraham. Because the Lincoln Club’s spokesperson had said they did.

But her campaign was furious and insisted nothing of the sort had happened. Then the Lincoln Club acknowledged the spokesperson had gotten it wrong when he told us the club had endorsed Abraham. Classic sign of Silly Season.

But there is no bigger sign of Silly Season than the spread of Extreme Umbrage Taking, or EUT.

What is EUT? (Pronounced “yoot”) This is when you see someone make the case that something their opponent or a journalist or someone has said has painfully, irreparably and devastatingly injured them. Modern campaigning is, in part, an umbrage contest. Only the best umbrage takers can make it through.

I was the subject of EUT this week when the group San Diego United Communities took Extreme Umbrage about something … we didn’t say. An Instagram account led by local housing and walkable neighborhoods enthusiast tried to describe the group. It listed various descriptions and then used a picture of our reporter Jakob McWhinney and a quote supposedly from Jakob calling United Communities “The YIMBY Avengers.”

When members of the group asked me about it, I assumed it was something Jakob did say as a joke on the podcast or somewhere. I thought it was silly. The Avengers are superheroes, after all. But they don’t like to be called NIMBYs. They then made this and it spread virally on Facebook and Nextdoor.

We searched our archives and podcast transcripts and confirmed that none of us had ever called them the “NIMBY Avengers” and the guy who made the Instagram post pulled it down. I explained that and apologized for dismissing their initial concerns.

But they deleted my explanation. One guy called me a “pompous ass” and the group thanked him. (I take umbrage!)

So brace yourself, it’s coming: It could be a text message reading something like this: “Hi you may have heard that (Candidate A) was attacked and irreparably slandered by (Org A or Candidate B or Faceless Phenomenon C) and we need you to help fight back. Send $50 to (link).” Or a mailer that says “(The unions, or gun lobby or billionaires or ai tech oligarchs or dog enthusiasts) have lied about my record. You can see the truth at (candidate fact check site funded by independent expenditure).”

Here’s More of What’s Coming

District 8 mailboxes are about to fill up: The San Diego City Council races are going to be fierce. In District 8, we have probably the biggest clash coming. The Labor Council and other allies of Antonio Martinez are not going to leave anything to chance. They don’t want to lose this seat again. The Laborers, Municipal Employees Association and the coalition of interests Assemblymember David Alvarez and incumbent City Councilmember Vivian Moreno have mobilized to win this seat over and over are going to be there for Gerardo Ramirez.

This is an open seat and could go either way and it is going to get mean.

District 4: Mariana Martinez Barba’s story on the race for this City Council seat got a ton of response from both sides. There’s no question incumbent Henry Foster is in trouble. Incumbency has advantages but Martha Abraham has been gathering diverse support. She has a warm, rapidly expanding presence online and whether the Lincoln Club supports her or not, she’s gaining traction. The firefighters deciding last week to withdraw their support of Foster was a big step. Watch for other shoes to drop.

San Marcos, center of the world: Last week, we had NBC San Diego’s Joey Safchik on the podcast and she pointed out that there is one place in San Diego where all local and national politics converge: San Marcos. Residents there will have pivotal votes on the future of Congress, the county of San Diego and the only tense state Senate fight around. We put a call out for mailers already flying there. Here’s a sample.

Major political insight alert: This is probably not the last reference to gas prices coming.

Notes

Airbnb’s big donation: In November last year, we reported that Airbnb had poll-tested and considered running a campaign to repeal the city’s trash fee. The company’s representatives were openly communicating that it could be a friend or foe as the city, at that time, was contemplating a new tax on vacation rentals. And it was an open secret that the company was willing to help the city pass a sales tax increase if this whole vacation rental thing went away.

Justin Wesson, policy manager, Airbnb told me this at the time:

“Airbnb supports meaningful solutions that help generate and protect local revenue across the state, but a hefty tax that significantly raises costs for residents who occasionally share their home to make extra money is not the right approach. We remain committed to working with local leaders on solutions that would actually help bolster affordability in the city.” 

One of the group’s that supported Airbnb’s opposition to the vacation rental tax was the Laborer’s union, LiUNA Local 89. The Laborers are working on a new sales tax measure for 2028 that would be focused on infrastructure.

A reader this week pointed out that, in April, Airbnb put $500,000 into a committee called San Diego Public Safety and Infrastructure Repair Measure.

Politifest is going to be good: You know who Paul Mitchell is. He’s vice president of Political Data at Political Data Inc. (PDI)  and owner of Redistricting Partners. He’s flying in to present all he knows about San Diego voters. If this isn’t enough to draw dozens of you then who really are you anyway?

Lots more. Get your tickets here.

If you have any feedback or ideas for the Politics Report, send them to scott.lewis@voiceofsandiego.org or will.huntsberry@voiceofsandiego.org.

The post Brace for Silly Season appeared first on Voice of San Diego.

Sacramento Report Countdown

46 days until the November election

Shhhhh. 

Do you hear that, everyone?

That’s the sound of Democrats dodging questions on what they think of Proposition 40, the divisive ballot measure that would force Californians with a net worth of more than $1 billion to pay a one-time five percent tax on their assets. 

The proposal, placed on the ballot by the Service Employees International Union-United Healthcare Workers West, would go toward healthcare. And while billionaires remain unpopular with, well, almost everyone, it has split Democrats into dizzying camps long before it qualified for the November election in June.

The proposal would create billions of dollars in much-needed revenue to address federal funding cuts to Medicaid and ensure thousands of people don’t lose their healthcare coverage, according to backers, including the California Democratic Party.

Opponents such as Gov. Gavin Newsom and leading Democratic gubernatorial candidate Xavier Becerra argue the tax would drive out the state’s wealthiest residents, and backfire by hurting the state’s long-term revenue over time. Republicans also oppose the measure.

But you’d be surprised how difficult it is to find out where San Diego’s Democratic state lawmakers stand on Prop. 40. 

Voice of San Diego and CalMatters (namely me) sent out inquiries in July and September to each member of the delegation asking whether they support or oppose the wealth tax.

This included multiple emails, phone calls, voicemails and text messages sent to lawmakers’ offices, their campaigns and themselves throughout the summer.

All the Republicans oppose it.

Only one Democrat, state Sen. Catherine Blakespear of Encinitas, took a position: no.

“We need a federal billionaire wealth tax or we’ll disproportionately disadvantage CA when our highest net worth individuals move out of state and pay no taxes here,” she said in an emailed statement in July. 

To Tax or to Not Tax Billionaires?

In an emailed statement on July 28, Assemblymember David Alvarez said he was still weighing the arguments for and against it, according to spokesperson Chris Jonsmyr.

His office did not respond to a Monday follow-up email asking where he stands now.

First-term Assemblymember Darshana Patel’s office didn’t respond to our July inquiry. On Tuesday, spokesperson Annie Chou confirmed her office received the request and said staff would run it by the member. As of publication time, the office has not followed up.

Assemblymember LaShae Sharp-Collins’s office has not replied to any of our July or September emails.

In July, campaign spokesperson Teannae Owens said that Assemblymember Chris Ward was still considering his stance on all 14 propositions and that he plans to release his positions after Labor Day.

During the final days of session, outside the Assembly chambers, Ward again told Voice he would say where he stands on Prop. 40 after Labor Day.

Ward did not return a phone call or voicemail message seeking to find out whether he supports or opposes the tax as of publication time.

State Sen. Akilah Weber Pierson’s staff in July directed Voice to contact campaign spokesperson Jeremy Addis-Mills about whether she backs Prop. 40. 

On July 20, Addis-Mills said he’d circle back to our question, but did not respond to follow-up emails sent on July 27 and on Monday.

Chula Vista state Sen. Steve Padilla’s office did not respond to our July request and on Monday told Voice to contact Dan Rottenstreich with Amplify Campaigns. As of publication, Rottenstreitch has not responded to my phone calls or text messages about whether the senator supports the measure.

In July, our request to Assemblymember Tasha Boerner was not answered. After our September email, spokesperson Annel Lopez said the four-term Democrat generally doesn’t take positions on ballot measures.

Her campaign spokesperson, Derek Humphrey, said Boerner was traveling and that she hasn’t taken a position on Prop 40. Humphrey declined to make Boerner available for an interview.

Every member except Weber Pierson is up for re-election in November.

Why are Democrats Mum on the Wealth Tax?

Democrats “are stuck between a rock and a hard place,” said UC Riverside political science professor Shaun Bowler about why Democratic lawmakers are unable to commit on Prop. 40.

“On the one hand, everyone hates billionaires. On the other hand, it’s not a good policy,” Bowler said.

Critics argue the one-time tax proposal is too narrowly focused on healthcare, pointing out that the expected $100 billion in new revenue it’d generate would mostly go toward backfilling federal cuts to Medi-Cal, the state’s low-income health program. It’s also a tax on assets, which California does not have a mechanism to tax. 

And a few of the 200 or so California billionaires who’d be affected have already begun fleeing the state to uproot their businesses (and tax dollars) to lower-cost states, Google’s Sergey Brin among them. But as Americans continue to feel crushed by an affordability crisis, taxing the rich has become a salient issue across the political spectrum, Bowler said.

Many progressives are also conflicted because they generally agree with taxing wealth but not on the particulars of this proposal, UC San Diego political science professor Thad Kousser said. 

“Because there are good arguments on either side, it’s reasonable that a lot of people aren’t taking a position,” Kousser said.

Another reason could be that some Democrats may not want to upset wealthy donors who oppose Prop. 40 and are bankrolling their campaigns, San Diego State University political science professor Brian Adams said.

“I think some Democrats like to give lip service to significantly increasing taxes, but actually balk at actually doing it,” Adams said. “I don’t know if that’s necessarily the case for anybody in the San Diego delegation, but I certainly wouldn’t be surprised if that were also the case.”

Tech entrepreneurs, including Brin, have pumped tens of millions of dollars into political committees to kill the measure, all while Google, Meta and other Silicon Valley companies have funneled nearly $10 million to candidates in state legislative races this year, according to the California Target Book.

It’s safer to avoid taking a side altogether so as not to upset the base or funders. That’s even more true for Democrats who represent San Diego’s wealthy coastal cities, Bowler said.

“If their district is at all overlapping with North County, there’s going to be a lot of city voters that are going to be against it,” he said.

North County state representatives Blakespear and Boerner have staked out different approaches.

Blakespear, who represents Encinitas in the Senate, said she’s opposed to the idea with a bent similar to Newsom’s: She’d like a federal wealth tax rather than a California one to avoid a mass wealth-exodus from the state.

Boerner, who represents Solana Beach, has opted to not take a position at all.

As for the candidates in the race to replace outgoing GOP state Sen. Brian Jones, former San Diego City Attorney Mara Elliott told The San Diego Union-Tribune in May that she was in favor of the one-tax time. She later reversed course, telling anchors in an August NBC 7 interview that she was against it.

Her Republican challenger, former Assembly candidate Kristie Bruce-Lane, opposes it.

Is it Fair for Politicians to Not Say Where They Stand?

The idea that elected officials wouldn’t take a stance on something as consequential as a wealth tax “makes no sense,” Adams said.

“Ballot propositions are laws. And as lawmakers, you would expect them to take positions on whether they think it’s a good law or not,” he said. “The idea that somehow they shouldn’t be taking a position on whether it’s a good idea or not is ridiculous.”

Kousser thinks the delegation’s silence is about leaving the decision up to voters, who worked to get enough signatures to put it on the ballot in the first place.

“No legislator has more of a vote on this than the rest of us do,” he said. “In that way, there’s a reasonable argument that it’s respectful to voters in the direct democracy process for politicians to let voters decide and listen to what they say.”

In an age where everyone is pummeled by social media algorithms showing them what to see, think and feel, it can be refreshing for lawmakers to give voters space to decide what they want to believe, Bowler said. None of the lawmakers Voice reached out to except for Ward said this decision should be left to voters.

But silence means something, too.

“Saying ‘I’m not going to voice an opinion on that,’ is actually informative for voters, especially when it’s a controversial issue as this one is,” he said. 

Your Ballot Questions Answered

I’ll be moderating an event with CalMatters’ Angel Rodriguez where we’ll break down, analyze and answer your burning questions about this year’s election with a focus on the propositions on your ballot. Our conversation will be centered around CalMatters’ latest edition of its definitive Voter Guide. Get your tickets here.

What I’m Reading Now

Ex-gubernatorial candidate Tom Steyer is in the clear after the state’s campaign finance watchdog dismissed a complaint that his campaign improperly paid online influencers, The Sacramento Bee breaks.

In a decades-long reversal, unmarried people might soon not have to pay more for auto insurance premiums than those with a ring on their finger, from The Los Angeles Times.

New cat alert! Researchers say they’ve discovered a new cat species for the first time in 100 years, and it’s absolutely adorable. See more at National Geographic.

Thanks for reading this week’s report! Please reach me at nadia@voiceofsandiego.org for any questions or comments.

The post San Diego Dems Mum on Wealth Tax appeared first on Voice of San Diego.

It’s officially the start of San Diego’s silly season. 

Your mailboxes will start to fill up with mailers and candidates for public office will try their hardest to earn your vote. We’re here to help you make sense of their messaging and the races. 

This week’s episode kicked off with the strangest kind of controversy: an AI-generated graphic that took shots at co-hosts Jakob McWhinney and Scott Lewis for something we never said on the show. Our hosts walked through the whole saga including angry emails and a deleted apology.

Silly Season 

City Hall reporter Mariana Martínez Barba published a story on the San Diego City Council District 4 race between incumbent Henry Foster and challenger Martha Abraham. 

Our hosts explain how Abraham has tapped into residents’ anger toward City Hall. Foster last week lost the endorsement of the union that represents city firefighters. 

Also, during a recent debate, District 8 candidate Gerardo Ramirez addressed an attack from his opponent Antonio Martinez about a contribution from a landowner who wants to open a landfill in Otay Mesa. Ramirez said he does not support the landfill or anything that will increase pollution in the district. 

Extra! We’re hosting a debate between Foster and Abraham, and a conversation with Martinez on Saturday, Oct. 3, at Politifest. Get your ticket here. 

The crew also has an update on the fraud charges brought against 12 individuals  accused of billing the government for daycare services that were never provided. Plus,  Jakob explains how a veteran special education teacher who was just awarded teacher of the year, lost her current job. 

Listen Here Now

Listen: Apple | Spotify | Google | PodLink

The post VOSD Podcast: It’s Silly Season  appeared first on Voice of San Diego.

Two years ago, Proposition 36 passed with a big promise that the criminal justice reform measure would move drug offenders into treatment rather than prisons.

Our partner CalMatters did a deep dive in 15 counties that have filed the most cases, including San Diego, and found that counties are struggling to deliver on that big promise.

Refresher: Proposition 36 increased penalties for repeat drug and theft offenders and San Diego County District Attorney Summer Stephan was among its most vocal supporters statewide. Advocates who opposed the ballot measure argued that it would drive more Californians into jails than treatment programs. 

CalMatters’ findings: As of early this year, San Diego County had the second-highest number of suspects charged with drug felonies among the counties the news outlet surveyed – and though Stephan and others point to San Diego as an example of success, there have been hiccups.

Though 71 percent of San Diego County’s Proposition 36 defendants who pleaded guilty to a drug felony through February were routed toward treatment, the county told CalMatters that as of a couple months earlier, fewer than a third of people referred for evaluation and treatment had agreed to it. Only two people had graduated from treatment.

We previously reported that it took the county a few months to set up a process for treatment referrals – and that the proposition has had a serious impact on county jail bookings and the county’s budget.

Read the full CalMatters story here. 

Newly Homeless Again Outnumber Newly Housed

The number of people becoming homeless in San Diego County outpaced the number moving into homes in August. The Regional Task Force on Homelessness reported that 1,093 people became homeless for the first time and 884 exited homelessness.

Your monthly reminder: For most of the last few years, local efforts to house homeless residents haven’t kept up with the flood of people losing their homes. That equation must change to dramatically reduce homelessness.

On the prevention front: Two nonprofits are partnering to aid single mothers at risk of losing their homes. (10 News)

Update: Lincoln Club Hasn’t Endorsed in District 4 Race 

A spokesperson with the Lincoln Club Business League previously told Voice of San Diego that the organization had endorsed Martha Abraham in the San Diego City Council District 4 race.

That turned out to be incorrect and a Lincoln Club spokesperson clarified the group has not made an endorsement. 

They gave us this official statement: “The Lincoln Club clarified that while an endorsement had previously been communicated and discussions remain ongoing, the organization has not completed its formal endorsement process or issued a formal endorsement in the race.” 

Abraham is running against Councilmember Henry Foster. 

You can read the updated article here. 

South Bay Roundup: Tax Push and Sewage Survey, Round 2

Our intrepid South Bay reporter Jim Hinch is out this week and we know he wouldn’t want you to miss these stories. He’ll be back next week and excited to pump out another South County Report.

-National City mayoral candidate and Councilmember Jose Rodriguez tried and failed this week to get an already rejected business license tax proposal on the March 2028 ballot. (10 News)

-On Thursday, the county and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention kicked off a second survey to assess how the Tijuana sewage crisis is affecting South County residents’ health. (Union-Tribune)

-As South Bay Union superintendent, Jose Espinoza has made tough calls to close schools and lay off staff. Inewsource checked in with Espinoza, who says those moves were designed to avoid a state takeover.

He Just Wanted to Play…with an Intruder

A Sherman Heights golden retriever has gone viral for repeatedly trying to coax an intruder with a toy in tow.

As the New York Post and others report, citing a high-quality NBC 7 San Diego story, 90-pound Nash’s family watched his encounter with a man who broke into their home through their home security app. During his roughly 30 minutes in the home, the unidentified man took his shoes and shirt off, ate food from the refrigerator and even took a nap. Police showed up – and Nash wanted to play with them too. The intruder left Nash’s house in handcuffs.

Spoiler alert: Nash greeted NBC 7 reporter Dave Summers on camera and demanded a belly rub, which Summers graciously delivered.

Politifest Elections Showdown Is Two Weeks Away 

Got questions about this year’s ballot? Join us on Friday, Oct. 2, and Saturday, Oct. 3, for debates with candidates running for office and discussions on the top issues in San Diego. You won’t want to miss our sessions with San Diego City Council candidates, mayoral debates for National City, San Marcos, Chula Vista and a discussion on a proposed county half-cent sales tax increase.  Plus, music, networking, a live podcast and a sunset reception overlooking Mission Bay. 

Get your tickets today. 

In Other News

• The county’s public health officer threatened the Otay Mesa Detention Center with potential “licensing actions” after the facility took three weeks to report a suspected tuberculosis case, the latest delayed report. (Union-Tribune)
• County supervisors earlier this week gave the go-ahead to a controversial 588-acre solar and battery storage project in Boulevard. (KPBS)
• The Metropolitan Transit System says it may be forced to make deep service cuts absent a solution to massive annual budget deficits it’s forecasting starting in fiscal year 2030. (Union-Tribune)
• Encinitas is officially studying whether to bring back red light cameras. (NBC 7)

The Morning Report was written by Lisa Halverstadt. It was edited by Andrea Sanchez-Villafaña. 

The post Checking on Prop. 36’s Big Promise appeared first on Voice of San Diego.

This story was originally published by CalMatters. Sign up for their newsletters.

The tough-on-crime initiative California voters passed two years ago wasn’t supposed to be a draconian return to mass incarceration. Instead, it promised to help people get better by diverting drug offenders into addiction treatment instead of prison. 

To see if Proposition 36 was making good on that promise, CalMatters analyzed data from the 15 counties that have filed the most cases  under the new law.

We found that people the measure was supposed to help appear to be falling through the cracks in large numbers. In some counties, a small fraction of those arrested for drugs under the law’s new “treatment-mandated felony” are actually getting treatment through Prop. 36. Even fewer are graduating their programs and having their charges dropped. 

We found that counties are implementing the new law, which also increased penalties for certain shoplifting cases, in wildly different ways. The amount of time defendants must stay in treatment to have their drug charges dropped varies from three months to two years. Some counties, such as San Francisco, basically ignored the law altogether, making hardly any Prop. 36 drug arrests.

Many counties that are making arrests are having a hard time fulfilling Prop. 36’s promise of treatment for everyone. The ballot measure was passed with no funding for addiction programs, and though lawmakers later appropriated some, it wasn’t nearly as much as stakeholders said they needed. That strained a treatment system already struggling with a lack of beds and outpatient slots. 

Before they got it onto the ballot, proponents of Prop. 36 called it the “Homelessness, Drug Addiction, and Theft Reduction Act,” highlighting their promise that it would address California’s homelessness crisis. But that promise has run up against the state’s limited housing supply, meaning the program’s many homeless participants sometimes have to try and get sober without a long-term roof over their head. Some counties have no money for case managers that could help keep people on track with their recovery. 

“The statute basically said, ‘We will fix everything for you,’ right? ‘We’ll come up with a mental health plan, we’ll come up with a drug addiction plan, we’ll come up with a work plan and we’ll come up a housing plan,’” said Tracie Olson, chief public defender of the Yolo County Public Defender’s Office. “And none of that happened.” 

The most recent statewide data shows that of the 18,666 felony drug cases charged under Prop. 36 last year in counties that reported treatment data, 17% involved defendants who opted for treatment, and just 57 cases were dismissed after the defendant graduated. 

In Orange County, which had the most potential Prop. 36 treatment cases of any county we analyzed, 1,311 people were referred to Prop. 36 on drug charges as of February 2026, but only 314 agreed to treatment. Of those, fewer than half were actively receiving treatment, while just 15 graduated. 

Information on how Prop. 36 works is spotty, and the state has yet to release comprehensive, detailed data on treatment and outcomes. In addition to requesting data from 15 counties, CalMatters interviewed more than two dozen people who have experience with the program. The level of data counties provided varied. Los Angeles County doesn’t track how many people are referred to and accept treatment under Prop. 36, and Stanislaus County doesn’t track treatment data. 

San Jose Mayor Matt Mahan, who was one of Prop. 36’s most prominent Democratic supporters, said the policy itself isn’t to blame for people failing to receive treatment. Instead, he faults the administration of Gov. Gavin Newsom, who opposed the ballot measure, for refusing to provide meaningful funding or policy leadership.

“People are waiting and dying on the streets for lack of a proper treatment system,” Mahan said. “The fundamental problem remains, which is that the state has refused to take ownership of building a robust treatment system that is going to serve the needs of people.”

Ian Kemmer, director of behavioral health services in Orange County, wishes the program was treating more people. But he says the fact that it’s helping anyone is a win. As of February, no one in his Prop. 36 treatment program had sought addiction services from the county in the past.

“I think that these are folks that we would not have gotten into treatment any other way,” he said. 

How Prop. 36 Works

Prop. 36, backed by district attorneys and sheriffs, pledged “a new era of mass treatment for those who need it the most.” Newsom tried to keep it off the ballot, referring to the initiative as an “unfunded mandate” that would take California back to the War on Drugs. It partially reversed a 2014 ballot measure that turned certain nonviolent felonies into misdemeanors in an effort to reduce incarceration after the prison population exploded thanks to tough-on-crime policies dating back to the 1980s. 

Now, prosecutors can charge people convicted of various third-time drug offenses with a felony, while also giving them the option of substance use or mental health treatment in lieu of up to three years in jail or prison. If a person chooses treatment, they are required to plead guilty or no contest to the felony charge. If they complete treatment to the court’s satisfaction, their charges are dropped. 

Courts typically refer those cases to their county behavioral health department, which then assesses the defendant to see if the person is eligible and what type of treatment they need. Then the court orders them into a residential or out-patient treatment program. A judge can order drug treatment, mental health treatment and job training, and also require the defendant to meet any other stipulations related to a “successful outcome” that the court finds appropriate.

When Californians voted on Prop. 36, the proposal specified that alongside drug and mental health treatment, defendants would be offered shelter, job training and other services “designed to break the cycle of addiction and homelessness.” 

Falling Through the Cracks

When people accept treatment through Prop. 36, sometimes they start the program and then fall off, which could happen because they don’t show up to their court hearings or meet other program requirements. As of February, 63 people in Orange County’s Prop. 36 program were considered not “active” and had warrants out for their arrest. 

Other defendants who could be eligible for Prop. 36 instead are referred for treatment to another county or program, and therefore don’t show up in the dataset CalMatters obtained.

Public defenders, district attorneys and behavioral health experts say even when treatment is available, the support needed for somebody to succeed is lacking. 

Those pains are being felt in San Diego County, where District Attorney Summer Stephan called the lack of case management support for Prop. 36 defendants a “missing piece.” 

Even so, her office touts its success with Prop. 36 and multiple politicians hold up San Diego as an example of what’s possible when a county commits to the new law. As of February, 71% of San Diego County defendants who pled guilty to a Prop. 36 drug felony allowed their case to be started on the path toward mandated treatment, according to Stephan’s office. Most of the rest were assigned to treatment through probation, and fewer than 5% were sentenced to jail or prison.

“I believe that it’s still a work in progress,” Stephan said. “But in the first year, I think we’ve demonstrated that Proposition 36 has made a big difference.”

But that data only captures part of the picture – it doesn’t show what happens later, after a defendant is referred to the county for evaluation and treatment. As of December, fewer than a third of the people referred had agreed to treatment and even fewer were actually being treated, according to the county’s department of behavioral health services. Two people had graduated.

While the stated goal of Prop. 36 is to get people into treatment, not prison, some people still end up behind bars. Between January 2025 and July 2026, there were 568 admissions to California prisons on Prop. 36 drug charges, according to an analysis by the University of California’s California Policy Lab and the Committee on Revision of the Penal Code. The average sentence was 28 months. 

Prop. 36 will likely increase the prison population by roughly 1,550 people once it has been fully implemented, according to the state department of finance. About 90,000 people are incarcerated in state prisons today. 

Old Cases can Prompt Prop. 36 Charge

After getting arrested last year on a Prop. 36 drug charge in Orange County, Nicco Pierstorff’s overwhelming response was anger. The 40-year-old had already overcome his methamphetamine addiction and pulled himself out of homelessness. But after police found drugs in a backpack in the backseat of his car — a backpack Pierstorff said belonged to an acquaintance, not him — he wound up facing the choice of jail or mandatory treatment.

But after graduating Prop. 36 in April and having his charge dropped, Pierstorff now views his time in the program as a blessing. The counseling he received gave him a new perspective on his past drug abuse and tools he can use the next time he finds himself in a risky situation.

“At first I thought it would be a waste of time because I was already sober,” he said. “But being in Prop. 36 really did help me a lot because it recognized my past trauma and the reasons why I do the things that I do.”

During the six months he spent in the program, Pierstorff got drug tested twice a week, and once a week attended both a group counseling session and a one-on-one meeting with his clinician. He went to court twice a month for the first few months, and then once a month.

Before that arrest, Pierstorff’s last arrest had been nearly 10 years ago. Back then, he’d been homeless and using methamphetamines, and had racked up various drug-related arrests. But he hadn’t used drugs — or been arrested — since 2018, he said. Instead, he’d gotten a maintenance job, found an apartment in Buena Park and turned his life around.

But that didn’t matter under Prop. 36, which does not specify a statute of limitations on prior convictions. That means any two prior drug convictions, no matter how old, can qualify someone for a felony drug charge. Although some district attorneys have implemented a “washout period” — a period of time that washes out prior convictions so they cannot count against someone facing new charges — many have not. Public defenders who spoke with CalMatters have reported seeing Prop. 36 felony charges based on priors that date back as far as the 1980s. 

“It’s a very archaic approach when the priors are old,” said Contra Costa County Chief Public Defender Ellen McDonnell. “If you haven’t engaged in that same context for 15 to 20 years, that’s not who the voters were intending.” 

Greg Totten, chief executive officer of the California’s District Attorneys Association, said he would have likely implemented a washout period, but every district attorney has to reflect the values of their constituents.

Very Different Treatment Requirements

Prop. 36 does not specify how long someone needs to remain in treatment before their charges are dropped. Program length varies widely — from three months in Ventura County to two years in San Luis Obispo County. The length of time someone is forced to remain in the program can have a significant impact on their lives.

Andre Nintcheff, a chief deputy public defender of the Ventura County Public Defender’s Office, said it’s not tenable for people to put their lives on hold as they complete a 12- or 18-month course of treatment.

“We want to make it palatable,” he said. “We want to invite people into treatment.”

In Sonoma County, treatment is required for at least one year. Aaron Kasper, who lives in Santa Rosa, was arrested on his birthday in March 2024 for allegedly possessing fentanyl. He pled guilty and took the treatment path, but said he felt like he signed a bad deal because nobody told him how long it would actually take to complete it.

After spending six months in jail, he finished a three-month residential treatment program. He thought his charges would be dropped as soon as he finished. But for the remainder of his year-long court-required time participating in Prop. 36, he was subjected to random drug testing and required to attend regular court appearances, outpatient treatment twice a week, and five self-help meetings a week. 

“I tried to make the best of a horrible situation,” he said.

But all of those obligations affected his ability to work. Since Kasper entered a plea deal, he knew it would be futile to apply for jobs with a felony conviction on his record. He lived off savings he received through a lawsuit settlement over the 2017 Tubbs fire and postponed his job search until two weeks before his year was up.  

After staying sober for more than a year, Kasper in July was one of two people in Sonoma County to graduate from treatment and have his charges dropped. According to the Sonoma County Department of Health Services, as of February 2026, 77 people were referred for an evaluation — 31 of whom agreed to treatment.

Lack of Resources for Treatment

When Prop. 36 supporters were campaigning, they promised to provide not only addiction treatment for people arrested on drug charges, but also shelter and mental health help – a trio of supports that ideally would help someone get off the street and turn their life around.

But access to all these resources remains an obstacle — a worry opponents brought up back in 2024 when the measure was on the ballot.

Prop. 36 is sending more people into Orange County’s residential drug treatment, which has fewer than 300 beds, Kemmer said. Before Prop. 36, patients generally waited up to a week for a bed. As of February, patients were waiting an average of two to three weeks, and sometimes as long as six weeks, Kemmer said. 

Kemmer said the county places people in sober living homes while they wait for a residential bed — they aren’t stuck in jail. 

But those sober homes don’t provide the treatment patients need. And it’s well-known in the addiction field that if someone says they want treatment, it’s crucial to act immediately – otherwise people are likely to get lured back into using.

It’s a similar story in Santa Clara County.

“We are simply out of treatment in my county,” said Santa Clara County Judge Stephen Manley, who handles drug and mental health cases. “So whether you’re Prop. 36 or probation or mental health diversion or misdemeanor diversion, you have to wait a long time to get into treatment. And that’s one of the big challenges with this proposition.”

A lack of housing also has been a challenge, as many of the people referred into Prop. 36 are homeless. In Santa Clara County, 61% of the people referred for evaluations were homeless. In Orange County, 62% of all completed evaluations were for homeless defendants. In Tulare County, homeless defendants accounted for roughly 30% of its 120 evaluations.

Most counties CalMatters asked don’t track how many people moved into housing while in the program. 

“That’s one of the huge problems with Prop. 36 in my view, is we don’t have housing,” said Santa Clara County drug court Judge Manley. “You put people back on the streets and they will continue to use drugs.”

In addition to housing, experts say mental health services can be critical to helping someone get sober, as co-occurring mental health and substance use disorders are common. Last year, about two-fifths of the 42.7 million adult Americans who had a substance use disorder also had a mental illness, according to the 2025 National Survey on Drug Use and Health. 

Prop. 36 requires courts to order a substance abuse and mental health evaluation of each defendant charged with a Prop. 36 drug felony. The court then orders a treatment program that may include mental health care, but doesn’t have to.

Whether and to what extent mental health treatment is being provided varies county by county. While some counties said mental health treatment may be included in their addiction programs, most weren’t tracking how many defendants received any type of mental health services. Those that were, reported that the vast majority of Prop. 36 defendants in treatment were receiving addiction services, while just a handful were receiving mental health treatment. 

Santa Clara County was the one outlier, with 13 defendants in mental health treatment and three in addiction treatment (including two receiving both services). The county uses a “whole-person approach” to treatment, because many people need and request both mental health and addiction support, the county’s behavioral health department said.

Alfredo Caballero, who has been in Prop. 36 in San Mateo County for more than a year, said he has severe posttraumatic stress disorder and bipolar disorder. But while he received treatment for his methamphetamine addiction and is now sober, he says he wasn’t offered any mental health care through Prop. 36.

“As far as mental health help there, I don’t see it,” Caballero said.

Potential Fixes to Prop. 36 Problems

Some politicians and local leaders have been pushing for more money to help close the gaps in services Prop. 36 participants can access. Sen. Catherine Blakespear, a Democrat from Encinitas, is part of a group that called for $400 million in this year’s state budget for addiction treatment. 

“The path is right and the voters voted for it,” Blakespear said, “and it’s our mandate to do more to fund it.”

But the budget, which was enacted in June, allocated just $50 million for pretrial services, behavioral health services and court workloads, according to the department of finance. It was another blow to lawmakers who last year requested $650 million for Prop. 36 implementation, but according to the finance department received $100 million. 

The Board of Community and State Corrections, which oversees California jails, distributed some funding for Prop. 36.  Since September 2025, nine grantees have been awarded roughly $72 million to include or create substance abuse and mental health treatment for Prop. 36 participants. 

Totten of California’s District Attorneys Association said district attorneys, probation departments and behavioral health departments are trying to put everyone in treatment who needs it.

“We’re somewhat challenged by the lack of funding, but I think the law is working as it was intended — with the exception of the availability of treatment resources at the local level,” he said.

Despite the road blocks that have impeded the rollout of Prop. 36, Gustavo Meza believes he would have died if he hadn’t been arrested last year on a Prop. 36 drug charge in San Mateo County. He’d already overdosed several times at that point, including once just days before the arrest. A friend had to revive him with Narcan.

Back then, Meza was homeless and his life was spiraling – his use of alcohol, methamphetamines, heroin and other substances had derailed his ambitions to become a commercial truck driver and gotten him evicted from his Foster City apartment.

Last year’s arrest was the catalyst that inspired him to turn his life around, but Meza did most of the work himself. After his June 2025 arrest, it was another 10 months before the court processed his case and enrolled him Prop. 36. By then, Meza had already found an addiction treatment program on his own, had been enrolled for eight months, and was sober. 

His life is much different now. Meza is working at a restaurant and Goodwill, going to group counseling, getting drug tested and taking classes in anger management and job skills. He wants to become a drug counselor and reconnect with his estranged 11-year-old daughter. 

“I’m sober, clear minded, not doing the stuff I used to be doing,” he said. “I just want to start nice and slow. I just want to establish communication with her.” 

Natasha Uzcátegui-Liggett contributed to this story.

This story was reported with support from the Rosalynn Carter Fellowship for Mental Health Journalism.

This article was originally published on CalMatters and was republished under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives license.

The post California’s Tough on Crime Law Promised Treatment. Here’s Why People are Falling Through the Cracks appeared first on Voice of San Diego.

Update: A spokesperson with the Lincoln Club Business League previously told Voice of San Diego that the organization had endorsed Martha Abraham in this race. That turned out to be incorrect and a Lincoln Club spokesperson clarified the group has not made an endorsement. They gave us this official statement: “The Lincoln Club clarified that while an endorsement had previously been communicated and discussions remain ongoing, the organization has not completed its formal endorsement process or issued a formal endorsement in the race.”

San Diego City Councilmember Henry Foster faces a newcomer who’s fed up with City Hall.

Martha Abraham, a nurse and community activist, first made a name for herself advocating against new development in the district. She’s been able to connect with residents upset at these projects — and at the same time fire up voters on the city’s lack of investment in southeastern San Diego.

Both candidates in this year’s City Council election are Democrats. Voter results reveal Abraham only came in second to Foster by 12 votes in a primary election where more than 22,000 people voted.

Our Mariana Martínez Barba set out to understand why the results were so close, and whether Foster’s long-record at the city will help or hurt him in withstanding Abraham’s challenge. 

Some political observers say Foster’s focus on the day-to-day government can make it difficult for residents to see how his work at City Hall is impacting them. Some residents also expressed concerns about Abraham’s ties to a community group that is backing several conservative-leaning candidates this year.

The endorsements are also interesting. Last week, the firefighters union withdrew their endorsement of Foster.

Some residents are simply fed up with the status quo. “We don’t know who’s supposed to help us,” said Carol Turner, a long-time resident of District 4. “We just need help.”

Read the full story here. 

Out with the 101 Ash Scandals, In with 107 Ash Project

Time for a rebrand. 

City leaders hope they’re one step closer to putting the 101 Ash Street dumpster fire behind them after a Tuesday City Council vote. And not just because the building will have a new address. 

The City Council voted 8-0 (with Councilmember Marni von Wilpert absent) to make tweaks to a now 65-year lease that would transform the long-shuttered office building into a roughly 250-unit affordable housing project with retail space and a childcare center. The lease is with a development group that includes the chair of the city’s planning commission. 

The Tuesday Council vote increased interest rates on its $45.6 million loan to developers and added a mandate to keep the apartments affordable for the entire 65-year term of the lease.

The Union-Tribune has more details on the still-controversial arrangement, which it reported means the city could be “just weeks away” from handing over the scandal-plagued building.

Rehash: The building has been vacant since 2020 when the city evacuated 101 Ash amid asbestos violations. The city has since poured tens of millions of dollars into the building and related legal battles. The scandal ultimately mushroomed to include a criminal case against a former volunteer adviser involved with the 2017 city lease deal and a 2022 settlement where the city bought out its lease on the building.

More on the Feds Daycare Fraud Charges

San Diego’s daycare fraud bust has gone national, and an in-depth article from the Union-Tribune unspooled even more details about the alleged crimes. According to the U-T, the two local agencies tasked with distributing federal funds to providers had reported concerns about the facilities in question. 

The feds’ investigation also began about a month after conservative content creator Nick Shirley and local activist Amy Reichert approached and filmed a handful of facilities they claimed were likely committing fraud. 

The feds didn’t charge any of the operators Shirley and Reichert visited in their video. They did, however, charge one man Reichert had posted about on X in January, before Shirley visited. Mohamad Alawad has been accused of fraudulently siphoning $1.2 million in funds meant for childcare, some of which he seemingly spent on fancy cars and watches. 

Learning Curve: Teacher of the Year Gets Excessed

For nearly two decades, Stacy Williams worked at TRACE Alternative School in San Diego Unified. The school works with adult students with disabilities, helping them learn the skills they need to lead productive, independent lives beyond high school. 

Williams loved this work – and she was good at it. Earlier this year she was named a San Diego County Teacher of the Year. Then, this week, her position at her school was eliminated, meaning she was “excessed.” The practice is common in school districts across the state. When enrollment ends up lower at certain schools than it was projected, teachers are removed and shuffled to a different position in the district.

For Williams, who’s built her life around this work, the news was devastating, not least because of the impact to her students, for whom consistency, stability and relationships are vital.

“None of that matters now,” Williams said. “It’s heartbreaking to look back on the 19 years in this school.”  

Read the full Learning Curve here. 

Your Ballot Questions Answered

At Politifest 2026, CalMatters will breakdown, analyze, and answer your burning questions about this year’s election with a focus on the propositions on this year’s ballot, in a conversation centered around the latest edition of their Voter Guide. Register here. 

In Other News

• As e-bike-related accidents and injuries among children have increased in recent years, San Diego County wants to sue companies that are misleading people by selling high-powered electric motorcycles as e-bikes. (Union-Tribune)
• Poway is moving to ban AI data centers citing concerns about their use of water and energy and the amount of land they would take up without creating many local jobs. (Times of San Diego)
• Police are investigating after a husband, wife and their 11-year-old daughter were found dead inside their Lake Murray home Wednesday morning. (Union Tribune)
• San Diegans, you’ll be getting your mail-in ballots on October 5. The Supreme Court pushed back on Trump’s voting reforms that could have put over 2 million San Diego County ballots at risk. (inewsource)
• A new report estimates that Tijuana River sewage pollution is costing San Diego County hundreds of millions of dollars a year, hurting local businesses and tourism. (KPBS)
• An internal review found major issues with the county’s handling of public records requests but the county’s top official isn’t recommending changes. (Union-Tribune)  

The Morning Report was written by Mariana Martínez Barba, Lisa Halverstadt, Jakob McWhinney, and Naomi Granata. It was edited by Will Huntsberry. 

The post A Wild Council Race in Southeastern San Diego appeared first on Voice of San Diego.

When Stacy Williams found out she was one of the local educators selected to be a San Diego County Teacher of the Year she was elated.  

“It kind of took my breath away,” Williams said. “I have done so many different things in transition that have been unique and outside of the box, innovative, and this was like ‘Oh, wow I’m finally getting seen and acknowledged for that work.” 

For Williams, the award was particularly validating because of how challenging and misunderstood her job can be.  

For the last 19 years she has worked at TRACE Alternative School in San Diego Unified. It’s a transitional school that teaches life skills to adult students with disabilities aged 18 to 22. Providing such services is federally mandated.  

TRACE’s goal is to teach students the skills necessary to live independent, productive lives after school. Sometimes, they provide additional instruction to students still struggling to read. At other times, they work on more hands-on skills. That could mean helping a student earn their driver’s license or providing intensive job training or even help navigating benefits programs. 

As part of that work, students receive in-depth case management from educators. That’s what Williams does. Or at least, what she did.  

Less than a month into the new school year, that celebration ended. Williams was excessed. In edu-speak, that means her position was eliminated – and she may no longer get to teach at TRACE.  

“I’m broken,” Williams told me. “The district has broken me.” 

The experience can be not only demoralizing, but entirely destabilizing. While teachers retain a job within the district, they’re shuffled around to a new school in need of someone with their credential, weeks after the school year has started. 

Like most teachers, this wasn’t Williams first go-around with excessing. She knows it’s been a fact of life in schools for years. This time was particularly crushing, though. The whiplash of going from winning one of the region’s top awards to losing the role she’d built her life around made her feel disposable. 

“It’s so demeaning, because you go from being in the spotlight to feeling useless,” she said. “You’re spiraling and you don’t know what’s going to happen and you’re scared.” 

Historically, dozens of teachers each year have been excessed. Often the driver is enrollment at a school coming in lower than expected, meaning a teacher that was assigned to a campus isn’t necessarily needed.  

“Excessing decisions are made according to enrollment at the school site, and in accordance with our negotiated allocation formulas,” San Diego Unified spokesperson Susan Shamoon wrote in an email.  

A recent MOU with the teachers union significantly reduced the number of general education teachers excessed each year. Special education teachers were less protected by the agreement, though.  

According to Shamoon, the district used to excess 60 to 80 general education teachers every year. This year, only three general education teachers and one counselor were excessed. Shamoon wrote that district officials are still finalizing allocations for special education teachers, para educators and some shared positions, so the final numbers aren’t clear. 

TRACE has been especially hard hit by excessing in recent years. Last year, five of the school’s mild-moderate disability teachers and one extensive-support-needs teacher were excessed. This year, in addition to Williams, who teaches mild/mod students, TRACE lost two more extensive-support-needs teachers and five paraeducator independent facilitators, staff who work with students to provide behavioral and academic support. 

But Williams’ worry isn’t just for herself. As a special education instructor, particularly one who works to prepare older students for life after school, relationships are particularly important.  

“Students with disabilities need consistency. It’s all about relationships. I’ve been working the past two months to build those relationships and now they have to start over with a stranger,” Williams said.  

“The biggest concern is what these changes are doing to our students. Students have been moved from one teacher to another, sometimes multiple times,” Williams said during Tuesday night’s board meeting, fighting back tears. “For students with disabilities, the lack of consistency can be incredibly disruptive. They build relationships with teachers, learn routines and depend on familiar people who understand their needs. Our students deserve stability consistency and teachers who have the ability to have the time to truly know them.” 

Over the years, she’s done all sorts of stuff that went far beyond the remit of a traditional teacher. She’s been there for the birth of a student’s child, helped a kid get into a welding program and attended a drug addiction meeting with a student. She even started a small business that helped students get job experience, the latter of which was commended by the County Office of Education as part of her award. 

“None of that matters now,” Williams said. “It’s heartbreaking to look back on the 19 years in this school.” 

The strength of the relationships she’d built with students were evident at Tuesday night’s board meeting. One of Williams former students, Tu Tran, spoke about the impact she’d had on her life. It was her first time speaking publicly. 

“My teacher is Miss Stacy. She is a really good person who helped me with a lot of things,” Tran said. “She helped me learn how to take the bus, how to take the trolley, how to use money… She helped me to improve my communication.” 

Like all teachers who’ve been excessed, she’ll end up with a job. But what kind of job? This late into the school year, she worries that the only assignment available will be a Frankenstein’s monster sort of position cobbled together from part-time special education jobs at different schools across the district.  

Beyond the potential mish-mash assignment, she’s heartbroken because it won’t be the same role as the one that’s brought her such meaning over the years.  

“This is not my skillset, I’m a transition teacher,” Williams said.  

As part of the award, one colleague gushed about Williams’ “compassion” and “clarity of vision.” 

“She understands that for many students, especially those with disabilities, education must be relevant, functional, and connected to real life,” an unnamed colleague wrote as part of the county ed office’s write-up for her award.  

As far as what comes next, Williams isn’t sure. There are some practical considerations. The award came with a $500 gift card meant to help teachers with classroom supplies. Now, she doesn’t have one.   

Long term, she hopes to land in a place where she can make an even greater impact on the lives of students receiving transition services. That may be working to help integrate transition services into high school, or it may be moving into an admin role if one becomes available. 

What is clear, is just how vital these services are and that San Diego Unified, like many other districts, “just isn’t there yet,” she said. 

Every year, Williams and her colleagues get 18-year-old students who can’t read. Students who don’t know the basic skills they’ll desperately need for whatever comes next in their lives.  

Not only do Williams and her colleagues work with those young people to help them get their first jobs, open their first bank accounts, learn how to ride the bus or pass drivers permit exams. It’s those moments, the profound milestones, that she’s most grateful to have experienced alongside her students. 

“These services are more important than getting a high school diploma in a lot of cases,” she said. “Anybody can go and get a piece of paper, but having these transition services that bridge the gap from high school to adulthood is the most important thing. Having a diploma means nothing if you don’t have the skills.” 

Catch Me Outside (Moderating a State Supe Forum) 

I’ll be moderating a state Superintendent of Public Education forum this weekend featuring candidates Richard Barrera and Sonja Shaw. It’s hosted by a whole slew of community organizations and will take place at PANA’s City Heights event hall on Saturday at 10 am. Come say hi and hear from the contenders about how they think education in California should work.  

You can RSVP to the event here. 

The post She Won County Teacher of the Year. Then Lost Her Position  appeared first on Voice of San Diego.