Marine protected areas (MPAs) have resulted in an increase in both numbers and size of many popularly fished species. For example, MPAs in New Zealand have supplied surrounding waters with larger and more lobster. In many places, this has led to what fishermen refer to as “fishing the line:” the best fishing usually occurs just outside the MPA border. This phenomenon has been observed elsewhere worldwide including Gulf of Maine, Florida and Australia.
Closer to Home: The Channel Islands
Only 20 miles west of Los Angeles, the Channel Islands are sometimes called "California's Galapagos." Wild and rugged, they rise up out of the Santa Barbara Channel, their steep underwater hillsides offering food and shelter to a staggering array of fish and other sea creatures, including red and green anemones, purple corals, pink sheephead fish and orange sponges. Despite the presence of both a national park and a national marine sanctuary, the area was threatened by overfishing in the 1990’s because neither entity had the authority to manage fishing. The 320 square mile marine protected area network around Channel Islands Marine Sanctuary, established in 2003, is the largest in the continental U.S.
The initiative to protect this productive food web grew from a 1998 proposal by a group of local sports fishermen to stem the trend of declining fish populations and reduced size of fish that they were catching. After years of mapping, public hearings and negotiating different plans, the California Fish & Game Commission approved a plan that protects 175 square miles of state waters, in addition to the 145 square miles of MPAs in federal waters. The marine protected areas now provide refuge for the many fish and wildlife species whose populations have been declining dramatically.
Although commercial fishermen initially disputed the creation of these no-take areas for fear of adverse economic impact, a review of MPA effects on fishing at Channel Island presented by the Department of Fish and Game in September 2006 concluded that despite new protections, fishing remained strong during the first few years following MPA implementation. The three top local fisheries, lobster, urchin, and squid actually saw major increased landings in 2005 (by 23 percent, 9 percent, and 31 percent respectively). Landing of popular recreation fish, like white seabass and rockfish caught at the islands versus elsewhere in California remained virtually constant. The Channel Islands rangers reported a 95 percent compliance with the Channel Islands MPAs to the California Fish and Game Commission, citing very few infractions.
-- MEAGAN WYLIETuesday, January 6 -- 4:30 pm
Marine protected areas work much like our national parks on land. The size and level of protection varies, but MPAs are designed to protect some or all of an ocean area's wildlife and habitat. Unlike traditional fisheries management tools, which regulate one species at a time, MPAs focus on protecting entire ecosystems -- from predators to prey. The MLPA is designed to compliment other ocean protection legislation.
Types of MPAs
There are three types of marine protected area designation. Each prevents various types of extractive uses, such as fishing or collecting, but all provide safe havens for struggling marine life to recover and thrive. The three types of MPAs include:
Marine Parks: Some recreational fishing allowed
Marine Reserves: Fish, wildlife and habitat are protected from all fishing and resource extraction
Marine Conservation Areas: some consumptive recreational and commercial activities are allowed
Why marine reserves?
While many different types of MPAs contribute to conservation, the greatest benefits are associated with marine reserves. At least 29 nations and territories have established marine reserves for various reason -- to protect biodiversity, manage fisheries, or restore depleted populations of marine animals and plants. Marine reserves are the most protective type of MPA, with higher protections than National Marine Sanctuaries. They prohibit the taking or destroying of marine wildlife or its habitat within their borders. Most marine reserves still allow scientific surveys of the area, as well as recreational use such as surfing, swimming, no-take diving and boating. With all the benefits and success stories associated with marine reserves, they cover less than 0.1 percent of the ocean world wide. Currently, most marine reserves are quite small, and the average reserve size is less than 1.5 sq. miles.
Why are large populations important, you ask?
Small populations are more susceptible to drastic decline by unpredictable catastrophes, like oil spills or global warming. Large populations contain more individuals, so they are more likely to contain individuals that are capable of surviving various stresses. The drastic decline of one species can often result in the decline of another, due to the inter-connectedness of this web of life. And why does fish size matter? Bigger body size is one of the most important biological changes in marine reserves because large fish and invertebrates can produce enormous numbers of young. The relationship between body size and number of young is well known (and often exponential!). For many marine fishes and invertebrates, small increases in body size can lead to large increases in the number of eggs produced. As a particular example of this phenomenon, a 40cm bocaccio rockfish produces an average of just 200,000 eggs per year, whereas an 80cm fish at double the length produces nearly 2 million, or ten times as many eggs!
The bigger and more abundant animals living in a marine reserve can produce far more than their smaller neighbors in unprotected waters. As a result, marine reserves can produce higher growth rates. Due to the migratory nature of fish, healthy, large and abundant fish can spill over into unprotected areas.
-- MEAGAN WYLIETuesday, January 6 -- 12:52 pm
Over the next year, Southern California residents will be actively involved in protecting some of the most diverse and spectacular undersea habitats in the world, through the Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA). In 1999, California adopted the MLPA as the first state law in the nation requiring a comprehensive, science-based network of marine protected areas (MPAs). The MLPA is being implemented in phases by geographic region, and the planning of Southern California MPAs is currently underway.
Stretching from Point Conception to the Mexican border, the south coast study region is certainly an iconic landscape and home to an amazing array of marine life and unique underwater habitats. But the idyllic surface of our coastal waters masks growing problems.
Over time, we have seen our marine environment steadily decline as a result of unwise coastal development, urban runoff, and overuse. These pressures have reduced the bounty of Southern California's waters to a fraction of what our grandfathers knew.
Marine protected areas are areas of coastal ocean set aside to protect all or parts of its habitat and wildlife by preventing extractive uses while allowing for research and recreation. Like "underwater parks," they allow ocean ecosystems to recover and thrive; ensuring future generations will be able to enjoy the natural heritage of California's coastal waters.
The proposed areas will be based on the best available science, focused on ecosystem-based management, and designed with direct influence from divers, fishermen, conservationists and citizens. MPAs will also be reviewed by scientists and economic experts to ensure that they protect key habitats and ocean life while leaving the most of the coast open to existing uses. Adopted MPAs will be managed by the California Department of Fish and Game.
Much like the historic and successful effort to bring MPAs to the Channel Islands a few years ago (and extended into federal waters last year), MPAs will be established through a thorough public process. And like the Channel Islands effort, involvement and activism by those who know and love the southern California coast will be essential to a successful outcome! In fact, there is an upcoming public meeting of the South Coast Regional Stakeholder Group (the group of more than 60 diverse Southern California area-stakeholders responsible for designing MPA proposals) on Jan. 13 at 9:30 a.m. and Jan. 14 at 8:00 a.m. at the Holiday Inn -- On the Bay, in San Diego. This may be one of the last regulatory meeting held in San Diego, so you may want to consider spending at least your lunch break attending the public comment session. ... unless you don't mind a trip or two up to Los Angeles in the coming months.
Of course, there are many more ways to become involved in this process, and I'm looking forward to discussing details and answering questions with all who are interested! And since it is common this day and age to refer a weblink, more information can be found on the official MLPA website, though be warned, there is likely more here than you ever wanted to know about the organization.
-- MEAGAN WYLIEMonday, January 5 -- 6:10 pm
Thank you, Coastal, Rachel, and Martha. And, CLB, thank you for giving me the opportunity to clear up a common misperception. The ACLU is remarkable because it truly defends the fundamental freedoms OF ALL, no matter your political or religious beliefs.
Here's a long list of cases the ACLU has taken on behalf of the religious freedom of Christians.
And other people whose rights we have stood up for include Sen. Larry Craig, Rush Limbaugh, Oliver North, and Jerry Falwell. In San Diego, most recently, we have stood up for the free speech of the Minutemen and a Christian student who wore a t-shirt to school with an anti-gay message.
You will find no other group in the country or perhaps the world who so consistently defends the freedoms OF ALL, including people we strongly disagree with, so that those valuable rights will be available to help all of us move toward a more fair, just, and equitable society. That's where we're headed -- sometimes haltingly, sometimes only after huge setbacks. But, we'll get there.
-- KEVIN KEENANMonday, December 29 -- 4:42 pm And, here is the good news -- the chicken soup for the San Diegan civil libertarian's soul -- the ACLU of San Diego's 2008 Best in Civil Liberties in the San Diego Area.
Preventing Mistreatment of Vulnerable Groups During Fires and Other Natural Disasters: A new law may help to prevent abuses like those the ACLU and allies documented during the 2007 wildfires. Public employees can ask for information and documents from evacuees of natural disasters only if it is necessary for determining eligibility for services, according to the law signed by Governor Schwarzenegger, sponsored by State Assemblywoman Anna Caballero, and supported by the American Red Cross-San Diego and others. The bill will help vulnerable groups -- the elderly, people with disabilities, the homeless, immigrants and those who are low-income -- who are the least likely to possess and carry personal documents and the most likely to be affected by unnecessary document checks during a disaster.
Career and College Prep Equality: the Commonsense, Achievable Next Step in Local Education Reform: By 2020, in order for Californians to maintain our current standard of living in an increasingly technological society, employers will need students with a post-high school education level for 75 percent of the jobs in the state. But, right now, only 39 percent of San Diego students are provided the classes needed to go on to either career technical education or college programs in the U.C. and Cal. State systems -- i.e., classes that are "A-G certified" by the state. In 2008, a new coalition, the Education Consortium of San Diego County, took off to encourage our school districts to make the kinds of changes that San Jose School District did -- adopt a policy of A-G For All and provide multiple pathways for students to get there. With lots of focus but minimal cost, San Jose saw its career and college prep rates increase, as well as other test scores increase and the drop-out rate decrease. Already the San Diego coalition has enlisted diverse, leading institutions like BIOCOM, San Diego Workforce Partnership, and SEIU 221; hosted a symposium of education leaders, issued a survey and reports; and hired its first organizer.
No Shooting Streak: Between December 2006 and a strange incident in November 2008 the San Diego County Sheriff's Department had no officer-involved shootings. That's a remarkable 23 months without a shooting! Besides luck, credit goes to the Department's willingness to hire external auditors and implement most of their recommendations, including new procedures for monitoring and reviewing uses of force. The auditors are due to issue a compliance report, and the ACLU is hoping to see progress on the implementation of a serious Early Intervention System and the handling of people with mental illness.
Defeat of Prop. 4: Californians -- but, alas, not a majority of San Diego County voters -- saw Prop. 4 for what it really was: yet another attempt to play abortion politics with teens' lives. The initiative would have required teens either to notify their parents they were intending to seek an abortion or charge their parents with abuse. It was a recipe for driving teens to dangerous, unsafe measures for obtaining an abortion. Reports indicate Jim Holman, owner of The San Diego Reader, is contemplating a fourth misguided attempt at an initiative.
Improvement in Oceanside's Suicide Response: We are expecting an announcement of major improvements in the way Oceanside Police respond to people who are threatening suicide. Some changes have already been implemented -- including having a team, rather than a single officer, handle negotiations. After a negotiation that was tragically mishandled by Oceanside Police, on December 26, 2007, Grant Sattaur took his life. The parents sought change but ran into dead ends until the ACLU helped them to publicize their effort and negotiate with the city. If the expected reforms are in fact delivered, the City and the Department will deserve credit for upgrading their practices and seeking to become a model for emulation rather than derision.
We crave the marketplace of ideas, so please bring on your suggestions and comments below. And, dear friends and especially those of you in positions of power, let's resolve to protect fundamental freedoms and individual rights for all in 2009.
-- KEVIN KEENANMonday, December 29 -- 11:44 am It’s time again for the year’s Best and Worst in San Diego Civil Liberties. Remember last year’s best/worst --Jerry Sanders’ emotional reversal on same-sex marriage, the treatment of immigrants during the wildfires, etc?
How did our fair region do this year in protecting the fundamental freedoms that make our country special? How did it treat our most vulnerable? Did it stomp on or stick up for the little guy?
There’s cause for both shame and hope.
Let’s start with the bad news -- the 2008 Worst in Civil Liberties in the San Diego area. Please share your reactions by selecting “Click here to post comments” below.
Proposition 8: In May, the California Supreme Court recognized that all Californians, “whether gay or heterosexual,” are entitled to the protection of basic civil rights, including the right to marry. In November, California voters took away that right. In San Diego, the vote was 53.8 percent for Prop. 8, compared to 52.3 percent statewide. A lawsuit by the ACLU and others may yet invalidate Prop. 8. But, win or lose the suit, new energy, activism, and resources will be needed either to win back that right or protect it from another assault. You can help by turning out on Jan. 10.
The Border Wall: A beautiful, distinctive landscape has been razed, an ecosystem threatened, and more lives put in jeopardy by the expansion of fencing on our border with Mexico. The death toll of migrants driven to life-threatening, desert crossings across the US-Mexico border since 1995 has climbed over the 5,000 mark. This tragedy was the inspiration for ACLU-San Diego’s new cooperation with Mexico’s National Human Rights Commission.
Camp Pendleton Spying on Local Muslims: The most important story of the year that no one is talking about? Various unconstitutional themes are weaved together in a frightening scandal in our own backyard. According to the Union-Tribune, a secret military unit at Camp Pendleton became a repository for surveillance files on Muslims in the L.A. and San Diego area, including the monitoring of area mosques. “For years,” the unit illegally shared “a massive number of files” with police in L.A. The ring leader may have shared data with private corporations for personal gain. And, federal agencies may have modified a Census database called TIGER to assist their targeting of Muslims. So far, only low level personnel are being prosecuted. The ACLU has filed freedom of information requests. We may have to litigate to find out the full story.
CCA’s Detention Center of Horrors: 2008 was the year Francisco Castaneda died . He was held at the Corrections Corporation of America (CCA)’s detention center in Otay Mesa where, over 11 months, federal officials refused to authorize tests or treat him for a growing lesion on his penis, even though doctors told them it was likely cancer. Instead, they gave him ibuprofen and extra boxer shorts. Finally, they released him days before a scheduled biopsy, apparently so they wouldn’t have to pay for his treatment or have his death on their books. Sure enough, he had to have his penis amputated weeks later and died months later. Although, in 2008, we were able to settle an overcrowding suit against CCA and the federal government, the ACLU is still fighting a suit for abysmal medical care that has led to gangrene and other medical problems. Now, CCA is seeking permits to build a facility four times the size of its current one. We hope compassionate local leaders will help stop the Mega Shop of Horrors from being constructed.
The Censorship Reflex: There is a reason the ACLU is so well known for its protection of freedom of expression. It’s because unlawful censorship seems as instinctual to those in power as a knee faced with a doctor’s tap. This year, officials tried to censor the Minutemen, the San Diego Unified School Board, a court interpreter , mobile home owner-activists in Escondido, and Grossmont High students who disagreed with Prop. 8. We have sued Fallbrook High for censoring and, after the paper’s faculty advisor blew the whistle on the principal’s censorship, effectively shutting down its award-winning school paper.
I invite dissent, alternative nominations, and other commentary from the floor. In my next post, I will give you the good news -- the 2008 Best in Civil Liberties in the San Diego Area.
-- KEVIN KEENANSunday, December 28 -- 8:24 pm I wanted to highlight this fascinating entry by Theresa Quiroz about busing:
The need for busing is caused by the unbalanced nature of our neighborhoods. We have large areas of low-income and minority families, and large areas of white, wealthy families. The City of San Diego has a policy of balanced communities that requires that all of our communities are integrated. The School District has a similar policy. But the City policy is always ignored, while the School pays huge amounts of money to abide by theirs. So it is my simplistic opinion that the busing should be paid for by the City of San Diego. The only reason we need to bus children is because the City has not complied with its own policy of balanced communities. The schools should not be penalized for the poor planning decisions of the City.
Now that would be interesting. I had never heard about the city policy.
Another reader asked: How could the budget crisis impact class sizes?
There are no firm answers about how much money San Diego Unified will have to cut this year -- the current guesstimate is $40 million -- nor whether the state will decide to cut specific programs or just slice a percentage of general funding.
"We just simply don't know," Superintendent Terry Grier said to me, when asked about how budget cuts might take shape. "We are sitting here in the dark now, waiting for some kind of solution. … We are at the mercy of elected officials that just don't seem to have much of a stomach for making hard decisions."
So the short answer is I have no idea, and neither does anyone in San Diego Unified.
But I can tell you a little bit about the dynamics of class size. Let's start with the basics. California gives schools money to spend money: It provides funding to help school districts create smaller classes by hiring more teachers. The program is called class size reduction, and it gives per-pupil money to keep classes small in specific grades (K-3 and 9.)
Whether that pencils out for school districts depends on how much they pay teachers and how large classes were before they got the state funding. A decade-old report by the Legislative Analyst's Office mentioned that some school districts actually ended up forking over their own money to supplement the money from the state, but others reaped money by participating.
That is one of the complications that comes up when school districts weigh whether or not to give up class size reduction: They will have to spend less money, but they will get less money, too. Does that make sense for San Diego Unified? It depends on how much they are spending and how much they are getting to whittle class size.
That, frankly, is something that I don't know right now, and the budget gurus at San Diego Unified are just starting a deserved holiday vacation. But I'll keep an eye on it as we keep covering the budget crisis.
San Diego Unified mulled whether to give up class size reduction last year, but took the idea off the table because it meant bargaining with the teachers union: Class sizes are often part of teachers union contracts, which cannot be altered without negotiating with the union. Doing that usually takes time that cash-strapped school districts don't have -- especially as state lawmakers keep delaying their decisions on the budget crisis. And you might have noticed that the teachers union and school district leaders have not been on the best terms over the past year.
There is a basic, logical bottom line: Laying off teachers means making bigger classes because you have fewer teachers to teach (roughly) the same number of students, and not every grade is covered by the state class size reduction program.
But that brings up a whole different question: Does class size matter? A lot of people are trying to figure that out.
Thanks for sending me your questions, and my apologies for not answering them all! You've given me some interesting leads and some new questions to chase. Feel free to send me your ideas anytime.
Friday, December 19 -- 6:25 pm
Another three questions came via one e-mail:
School closures and possible changes to the magnet school list! … [Any] idea on when decisions will come down? Also, how will budget pressures affect class size?
Let me break this down:
School closures have been a hot topic: San Diego Unified is considering closing under-enrolled elementary schools to save money. Running a half-empty school is expensive because there are fixed costs such as a principal, custodian and the basic costs of keeping a building lit and powered that could be saved if a school was closed and its students sent to other schools. A committee appointed by the superintendent and the school board members is weighing the issue and is supposed to give its recommendation to the school board in January. Any decision has to be made by the school board, and the idea is that schools would actually be closed by the fall.
Here is our most recent update on the process. That is all I have for now -- but we'll have more as it unfolds.
The school district is still reviewing whether all of its magnet schools are really magnet schools: themed schools that draw students from across the school district. Some are so popular with neighborhood kids that they have no room for outsiders; others never put their themes into place. Why does this matter? Magnets are sometimes afforded extra money to keep unique programs going. We last reported on this in October.
Chief School Innovation and Choice Officer Rich Cansdale said an outside group, Magnet Schools of America, will be scrutinizing San Diego Unified magnets in January to come up with recommendations for the school board. Staffers have already recommended that San Diego Unified demagnetize some schools, but the board has not made any decisions.
Now for the monster question: Class size. I need to do some digging to explain this well. Check back with me a little later.
Friday, December 19 -- 4:19 pm
Hail to my temporary overlords! I'm making some calls to try to track down some of your tougher questions. In the meantime, let's talk about whether San Diego Unified could charge for the school bus to balance its books.
Reader MLK asked:
What is the likel[i]hood of SDUSD charging for busing like some districts have started to do? What would the impacts be?
This is a sticky question. While other school districts have begun charging for busing, San Diego Unified has historically avoided it because the vast majority of busing goes from poorer areas to wealthier ones. Busing is also a stopgap to keep northern schools full and prevent overcrowding in the southern areas of the school districts, where there are too few schools for the number of students. (Check out this article about the issue.) Wrap your brain around this: It is physically impossible for every student in San Diego Unified to go to their neighborhood school.
Last year, San Diego Unified actually spent less money per student on busing than Los Angeles, but more than Long Beach, both of which are often compared to San Diego. But we bus a higher percentage of our kids. There are several reasons why students are bused in San Diego:
They are part of a decades-old integration program that mostly brings students from poorer, mostly black and Latino areas, to wealthier areas with more white and Asian residents.
They go to magnet schools that draw students from all over the school district, and focus on a specific theme, such as performing arts or Mandarin Chinese.
They are leaving schools that have repeatedly fallen short of standardized testing goals under No Child Left Behind. The law requires school districts to offer families this option.
They are special education students who attend unique programs that are only offered at a handful of schools. You can't legally charge families for busing disabled kids to those schools.
The idea of charging families for busing was mentioned -- along with just about every other possible solution -- at a recent budget workshop for the San Diego Unified school board. Paying for busing didn't seem to drum up much excitement because it would mean charging people from poorer areas of the city.
Other districts have charged busing fees and exempted poor families, but the sense I get -- and I'm not sure on the exact data here -- is that that wouldn't leave a lot of people to charge in San Diego Unified. Roughly 60 percent of all students in the school district qualify for free and reduced price lunches, and in poorer neighborhoods where busing is common, those numbers can run as high as 99 percent.
Keep the questions coming. You can ask for more details or send me on a whole different path by e-mailing me at emily.alpert@voiceofsandiego.org. Update: Just heard from San Diego Unified spokesman Jack Brandais, who let me know that the school district isn't just reluctant to charge for busing: It would be illegal. The programs that have busing are required -- special education, integration, No Child Left Behind -- so adding a price tag is verboten. What can save money on busing, though, is aligning bell times so that fewer buses are needed. Lining up bells saved $1.4 million for the school district last year, Brandais wrote.Friday, December 19 -- 5:04 pm
Have burning questions or great tips about schools in San Diego County? Friday is your day to send me out to answer them as the People's Reporter.
I only have a day to chase down your questions about education, but I will do my best to track down what I can, and file away the ideas that are too big for one day on the job. You have the power my editor normally has -- and you don't even have to give me a paycheck.
I can also answer any questions you have about education reporting or any of my recent stories. Wondering about the looming budget crisis? School closures? Standardized testing? The new, labor-friendly school board installed in San Diego Unified?
Shoot me a question at emily.alpert@voiceofsandiego.org, or post your questions below.
Thursday, December 18 -- 4:11 pm
Let me start by both thanking everyone (and I do mean everyone) for their comments, critiques, and even an occasional "bravo" (I appreciate that, especially given the effort that Derrik himself makes to inform people about Tijuana). I'd also like to encourage some of my colleagues from Tijuana or Baja California that may be reading this to include comments in Spanish, too -- I'll do my best to digest them in English for the other readers of voiceofsandiego.org.
I say that last comment, in part, because of a very thoughtful email sent to me by one of Tijuana's business leaders, suggested that I mention some additional unique characteristics of Tijuana: [my translation of his comments]
". ... It (uniquely) has a Chinese Consulate, not to mention direct flights from Tijuana to Shanghai; direct flights to Narita (near Tokyo, Japan), opening up those business opportunities, and supporting the corporate linkages with many of the nearly 600 maquiladoras (a concentration of manufacturing not found elsewhere in Southern California, and few other places in Mexico). In all: combining our strengths and talents, we are a better region, and share the same air, the same water (Colorado River), and the same climate. For this reason, our Economic Development Council (DEITAC) promotes 'One Region.'"
A good vision, in part because at its heart, it's actually true. Most of us just have a habit of building up the walls between these two sister cities -- sometimes for what might be legitimate reasons; more often, probably because we buy into the "map mentality" of drawing a line between our two countries, and putting detailed roads and streets on one side (thus giving it a sense of reality and place), and putting an empty area on the other side of the line and calling it "Mexico".
But getting to Jack Griffith's comment -- let me say I actually would not call you cynical. You are bringing up legitimate points, in fact, in that I would agree supporting Gov. José Guadalupe Osuna's efforts are only part of a solution, and "PR" isn't going to solve any problems -- that's why we've tried to emphasize providing facts and data so that people don't fall into broad generalizations (like associating Tijuana's situation with Afghanistan -- perhaps it's easy to try to draw such a parallel, but I don't know that comparing a country with a city is accurate, nor have I seen side-by-side data to show that there is any real point of comparison. Compare it to the Mafia. … and that's probably a better fit.
And let me take the example Jack gives about the attack on the PGJE offices in Tijuana as an example of the "need for context" to such crimes: I was in Tijuana that very evening (described in my first blog post). Not only that, I drove within two blocks of that location following my meeting. The attack occurred later (in the early-AM hours, when most visitors to Tijuana aren't there), it occurred at a location that few US visitors would ever be near, and it was another example of how the vast majority of the violence occurring is either law enforcement-versus-narco, or narco-on-narco. It doesn't mean that the violence doesn't occur, but it does give another example of how we shouldn't over-dramatize what's going on and apply it to "all of Tijuana", nor to "all of Mexico." Go visit CECUT, go visit Avenida Revolucion, go visit some of the great restaurants there -- and (again) the worst thing you'll be likely to ever see is a 60-to-90 minute border wait (usually).
On the idea of "border militarization," I'm not sure if that comment is referencing Tijuana (which already [thankfully] has seen federal military troops assisting law enforcement), or the U.S. side -- but I'll assume it's in reference to the United States. I think such comments, while perhaps well-meaning, again do not actually create any solution. Having armed U.S. troops at the border won't stop the battles between the drug cartels in Tijuana -- so why is it ever presented as a solution? It's not. And, again, referencing the facts that there are cities in the U.S. that have much higher violence levels, I'd suggest we consider applying martial law there before we tell our neighbors in Mexico that such an action should be done in their country.
Keep those comments coming!
-- KENN MORRISThursday, December 18 -- 3:10 pm
Thanks everyone for the comments -- spread out between Rachel's initial post and my own, but let me try to summarize and hit a few points:
First, I'm glad to see some of the positive remarks -- I know there are a lot of minds out there (like the two Steves) thinking about these issues, so I hope my comments are helpful in prompting some additional future dialogues about these topics.
Going back to Rachel's earlier comment ("which US cities?") and one of Terry's points: two more cities that have significantly higher murder rates than Tijuana are Camden, New Jersey, and Compton, California. Gary, Indiana, is another close one. While clearly all are smaller sized cities, part of what I'm trying to emphasize is the need to create context about what is occurring today in Tijuana, as well as asking readers to look at the real risks and facts of the situation -- not "blanket" judgments based on fear.
I'll refer you to a good effort by KPBS and TijuanaPress.com to use Google Maps to show the approximately 350+ murders (again, primarily of narco-related killings, not random) that have happened in the Tijuana-Rosarito region since September. One finding supported by their Border Battle map: "Looking at the map, tourist areas are not hot spots" (emphasis is mine). Such details are easily overwhelmed by less precise media commentary and the public discussions about Tijuana (also, the accuracy of Coastal Grill's "300 murders in a month" comment is easily debunked with the data there -- so, I'm going to encourage you, Coastal -- head south again, jump on the new City Tour bus and enjoy Tijuana [and San Ysidro] for a day trip -- the worst experience you'll likely have is a long delay at the border).
I'll also admit, sometimes it's hard to find data. For instance, trying to find Terry a comparison about 170 narco-related killings in a month someplace in the U.S. -- I'm not sure where to start, and I don't know if it will result in a useful response. I know from research that in the early-1990s, Chicago regularly had more than 900 murders each year -- far fewer than the nearly 500 that have happened there to-date in 2008, but also higher than Tijuana's current numbers. Rather than focusing only on a snapshot of data, I'd suggest we should look to examples like Chicago, New York, Miami, and other major cities in the US that have gone through corrupt and violent times, to become the cities they are today. I don't know when it will happen -- one decade, two, three? -- but my guess is that Tijuana will be one of those cities too.
To Serge: trust me, I understand the "titling" issue of your blog, so I never took issue with you about that (although I did encourage voiceofsandiego.org to make a change -- they didn't ultimately agree with me, though). I also wouldn't consider you "sheltered" in any way -- so don't take my critique about one of your recommendations wrong. I disagree with blanket "avoid crossing the border" types of comments, it's true, because I think we need to use information to truly weigh the risks, and much of Tijuana (let alone other areas in Baja, and Mexico) is actually pretty safe for visitors. I look at your blog not as a "flashpoint" but more like the opening of a discussion.
As for Terry's other comments: while I understand the perspective, I don't agree with it. I don't think anyone should "be happy" if fewer tourists are visiting, as that undermines the economic vitality of those that are on the "good side" and leaves the community open for more corruption and crime. Assuming U.S. visitors have only an entirely benevolent effect on Mexico's society may be overlooking some negative influences too, but it's true that the net effect is positive. As for corruption, I can't help but point out that just today I heard various news references to a certain Governor of Illinois, a multi-billion dollar scandal run by Bernard Madoff that will harm the retirement of thousands of people, a $1.4 billion settlement by Siemens on a bribery conviction, not to mention recent problems of a certain San Diego congressman, and even questionable practices by local economic development organizations recently highlighted by voiceofsandiego.org. So, neither Tijuana nor "Mexico" is alone in incidents of corruption, and to condemn all of Mexico for the corrupt practices of a very small minority isn't just or logical (again, just my two-pesos).
Again, thanks all for the dialogue -- I've been told we might continue this discussion through Thursday, so I look forward to more comments.
-- KENN MORRISWednesday, December 17 -- 6:25 pm
I'm writing this after having spent nearly a full day in Tijuana, ten hours in all -- one of which was spent idling in my car with thousands of others to cross the border northbound (legally). My trip started mid-day, however, dropping the wife and daughter off at Tijuana's airport to catch a flight to Mexico City; then, I made a quick stop at Tijuana's Cultural Center (CECUT); followed by a short meeting nearby with the executive director of Tijuana's Tourism Bureau; and then ending my journey in the evening, at an office in the Grand Hotel to get some advice about my company's Mexican operation.
All in all: it was a long day in TJ -- and one without gunshots or the fear that many San Diegans have come to accept as a given, based on what most news media have decided to write about these days. The reality is that my day was relatively typical for many of the 1.6 million people that live in Tijuana and go about their lives, trying to earn a living and take care of their families. The daily routine has, it's true, been hit hard of late -- but not just by real concerns about inter-narco violence in some parts of the city; it's also been hit by what I'd call indiscriminate generalizations of that violence that have turned US visitors away. The result: both unnecessary damage to crossborder tourism, and to the livelihoods of tens of thousands of good, law-abiding people in Tijuana and Baja California.
Let me be the first to admit that any description of me trying to "spearhead" an effort to improve Baja's tourism industry dramatically overstates my abilities and my small part (not to mention that it overlooks a much larger effort by dozens of business and civic leaders on both sides of the border). Rather, for over 15 years my work has been to focus on finding real data about the border region and Mexico, and encouraging others to break perceptions with facts.
For instance: Rachel mentioned she wanted to find out which U.S. cities might have it worse than Tijuana. Some bad news for Mardi Gras lovers: the real data shows -- despite Tijuana's uncharacteristic and (we believe) short term spike in narco-fighting -- the city of New Orleans still (amazingly) has a higher per-capita murder rate (nearly 50 per 100,000 based on our calculations for early December 2008). Even St. Louis is about on par with TJ, too. Don't get me wrong -- this doesn't hide or excuse what's going on south of the border (nor should any of us discount the pain and grief that some of this is causing the families of innocents). It does point out what our colleagues in Mexico might consider an unfair and intense level of scrutiny on Tijuana (and Mexico), while lower attention is paid to problems in some U.S. cities. Add to this some over-repeated statements like "avoid travel south of the border. …", and my view is that we actually contribute to the problem by undermining the still-safe and "good" side of our neighbor's economy (sorry, Serge -- I just think such statements are a little too broad and create unnecessary fear).
My invitation to host this Café blog came about, in fact, following a suggestion of mine to voiceofsandiego.org that a certain headline ("Tijuana: a Troubled Paradise") wasn't perhaps the most accurate description for a blog posting that talked about issues mainly outside of Tijuana (in one instance, a rural village nearly 200 miles distant). Coincidentally, just days before that, I'd read a headline on the San Diego Union-Tribune's website (can I say "Union-Tribune" here?) that associated a late-night shooting at a ranch 100 miles south of the border with "Tijuana," too. I'm a simple guy, so I can understand that using "Tijuana" perhaps is done to give readers a point of reference -- but such casual use also contributes to misguided myths about the border that hold our region back in many ways.
How? I'm a data guy, so here are a few more facts: Tijuana is the second-largest city on the western coast of North America after Los Angeles (go on -- check it out). Its airport runway is the second-largest in our region after Miramar. Many of its 500+ manufacturers are on the cutting edge of technology -- whether building pacemakers, stents, Bluetooth mobile headsets, airplane components, solar panels, or high-definition TVs. The vast majority of the nearly 120,000 people that (still) cross the border legally from Tijuana into San Diego County each day contribute their energy to our economy, our workforce, our educational institutions, and our networks of friends and families.
My point: By continuing to build up our negative perception of Tijuana, we risk continuing to overlook incredible opportunities that our very unique, binational region has -- and few other global locations can match. Tijuana's place in our region (and San Diego's ability to benefit from stronger binational ties), is ultimately a larger issue than the current, shared security challenge caused by cartel fighting over U.S. drug distribution territories. I encourage readers of this blog to look deeper at the discussions about Tijuana and the border, and go beyond the simple one or another negative angle to find a much more complex story. Come 2009, Tijuana will turn 120 years old -- so what do we want the next 120 years of our binational relationship to be?
Well, so much for 350 words, Rachel. I hope it's a decent start to the dialogue.
-- KENN MORRISWednesday, December 17 -- 12:52 pm
A few things before tomorrow's Café:
Mexico's escalating drug war has proved especially brutal in and around Tijuana. Earlier this month, The New York Times reported in this story that the number of killings in Mexico linked to drug trafficking has more than doubled in the past year. The numbers -- there were 170 murders in Tijuana in November alone -- are unsettling.
By extension, Tijuana's once-thriving tourism industry has effectively peaced out. The midday gun battles and footage of soldiers patrolling the streets with automatic weapons aren't really vacation fodder. Serge Dedina, who hosted Café on this topic in November, said he counted just six tourists total on one recent daytrip through three Baja cities.
Our host today, Kenn Morris, wants to change that. Morris is the president/CEO of Crossborder Group Inc., a San Diego-based U.S.-Mexico and border market research firm now working with the Tijuana Tourism Bureau. He contacted us after Dedina hosted, saying this:
We've been tracking some of the security issues and statistics -- and really were surprised at how even Tijuana's current situation is not as bad as in some U.S. cities.
I can't wait to find out which ones. Stay tuned.
-- RACHEL WILLIAMSTuesday, December 16 -- 11:22 pm
I appreciate Mr. Griffiths' ideas and would even offer to take his suggestion one step further: why should youths from disadvantaged backgrounds have to be arrested first in order to have national service programs solicit their help? It would keep them out of trouble in the first place if such programs promoting positive behaviors became more entrenched in youth cultures.
The point that Mr. Cervantes and "aj" hit on is that prevention programs that are "anti-anything" just further entrench the legitimacy of the targeted negative behavior. In a related example, politicians at all levels are encouraged to never mention their opponents' names during a campaign and prevention programs would be wise to take a page out of this play book. Gang prevention programs should shift their energies to focusing on the achievement of positive goals and not continue to (unintentionally) give credence to negative behaviors.
Case in point: For the five years before starting Reality Changers that I worked with youth from disadvantaged backgrounds, all we ever talked about was gangs and drugs. And guess what all of them did? Gangs and drugs, gangs and drugs ... spiraling towards more and more violent behaviors. However, for the past seven years at the Reality Changers program, all we ever talk is becoming the first person in each's family to go to college. And guess what all of them do? Go to college! These students from the same streets (and in many cases from the same families) have been able to transcend the code of the streets because they have entrenched themselves in a positive, goal-oriented culture.
-- CHRISTOPHER YANOVFriday, December 12 -- 4:03 pm
Gang prevention programs don't work. It might be surprising to hear this, especially coming from one of the original commissioners on San Diego's Commission on Gang Prevention and Intervention, but here's why:
- At best, prevention programs strive for normalcy, nothing greater. If successful, they may stop something from happening, but they do not create new behaviors in place of the old behaviors.
- Typically, prevention programs cast too wide a net. Gang expert Malcolm Klein suggests that such programs cause the issue in question to become perceived as more prevalent than it may actually be, thus normalizing the negative behavior for a larger audience that may not have been otherwise exposed to or affected by the problem.
At worst, prevention programs provide free advertisement for negative behaviors. Even more detrimental than merely normalizing the issue, this advertisement heightens the very appeal of the negative behavior.
If gang prevention programs, in essence, promote negative behaviors, why do law-abiding communities seek to create so many programs that promote gangs?
An effortless shift in perspective can transform the counterproductive nature of prevention programs by asking one simple question: What should promotion programs actually promote? The list is virtually endless: go to college, support a social cause, volunteer, participate in organized sports, or join clubs at school and in the neighborhood.
In contrast to prevention programs, positive promotion programs are successful because:
- Positive promotion programs strive for individuals to accomplish something that normally would not occur.
- Positive promotion programs offer options where individuals can select activities that best suit their budding interests.
Positive promotion programs can popularize the appeal of productive behaviors.
For potential and fringe gang members, positive promotion programs are essential to averting criminal, violent behavior by making productive activities socially acceptable among peer circles otherwise vulnerable to the lure of gang lifestyles. Gangs are a default culture where membership is allowed to flourish only when productive activities are not adequately promoted toward its target audiences.
In sum, any program with gang prevention as its premise is doomed to fail.
However, gang prevention will be the product of all promotion programs that popularize productive behaviors.
Christopher Yanov worked with gang members in the San Diego region from 1996-2001 before starting Reality Changers, a program that targets low-income, inner-city youth and has awarded more scholarships to college bound students than any other single organization in San Diego County for the past three years.
-- CHRISTOPHER YANOVThursday, December 11 -- 6:02 pm Many of you have made some excellent points. I have read you concerns and you share interesting perspectives on the issues of transit in our community.
There are several factors that will drive the future demand for transit in San Diego. The first of these is likely to be high gas prices. Second is traffic congestion due to population and job growth. Third is convenience couple with easy access to transit stations. And lastly is transit speed thus travel time. As these issues become more and more severe and begin to seriously effect our lives, rider ship will grow at an exponential rate. Transit will have the effect of taking some people out of their cars and off the road thus reducing some pressure on traffic congestion. It is unrealistic to assume that transit will relieve traffic. Instead it acts as more of a mild relief. Not unlike taking an ibuprofen when you have just had your wisdom teeth pulled: it doesn't necessarily eliminate the pain, but it does take the edge off.
What is important is how we utilize our available land resources. The key to success is well-planned high density communities that are very desirable places to live, located within a short walk of public transit. An excellent example is downtown San Diego's Little Italy. There are four transit stations within walking distance to most of the residents who live there. However, the pain has not gotten great enough to where most of the residents ride public transit yet, but it will. The good news is that Little Italy is already situated to deliver that lifestyle change to its future residents.
There are several areas within our region that are also situated next to transit stations. Within the San Diego region is the downtown Grantville area. Areas east of the San Diego region include downtown La Mesa and the Alvarado Creek area. Moving south we have National City where transit stations are situated along the 5 freeway. They act as a mid-way point between downtown San Diego and Chula Vista (two of the county's fastest growing regions). These are areas of focus that need the support of visionary people in the community who can see the population coming and can see the issues our children's children will face. Planning these areas takes a very long time. There are many agencies and stakeholders involved and everyone has their own wants and desires. However, if the citizens of San Diego stay focused on the big picture, then we can influence the necessary changes and prepare San Diego for future growth in a sustainable manner. Connecting future homes and workplaces to transit is one way to prepare.
-- JACOB SCHWARTZTuesday, December 9 -- 4:12 pm
CLB: I agree. It is also important to create lifestyle environments near transit that are so highly attractive as communities, that people will want to move to them. When you place well-designed housing above lifestyle supporting retail uses, add fountains, parks, amenities and attractive landscaping, you have created a "place." That place can be fun, attractive and can offer such an easy walkable lifestyle, that it actually pulls in space users. These users choose to live in these types of places and they seriously consider using the transit right out their front door. Especially when the time to drive vs. the time to ride move closer to being equal.
-- JACOB SCHWARTZDate: 12/9/08 I will never forget visiting my Italian relatives in New York for Thanksgiving in 2002. I had not been there since I was a little boy, so you could say it was my first time in the Big Apple. My relatives live in a little sub-community of Brooklyn called Benzonhurst. I was itching to go to the city, so I woke up early on Wednesday morning and asked my Uncle Sonny if I could use his car. He suggested I ride the subway, because I would surely get lost and confused if I drove the car. So that Wednesday morning I walked over to the subway station and took the train my uncle said would drop me off in the "middle of it all."
When the subway roared in, the first thing I noticed was how packed full of people it was. There were several homeless people singing holiday songs, as well as blue- and white- collared workers of all races. There was even a preacher man shouting the gospel, offering to "save your soul for the holidays" while jingling a coffee can full of change. As a Southern California native, I was a little intimidated by it all. I had never been on a subway before. I looked around and finally settled in a seat next to a man in a shiny suit reading the Wall Street Journal. I will never forget looking down at the man's wrist while he held up the paper and thinking to myself, "Wow, that is a platinum Rolex. This man is probably very wealthy." Needless to say, the socioeconomic diversity on that train was eye-opening. Why are these wealthy people riding the subway with people that may stab them and steal their watch? The answer was simple: "They almost have to."
San Francisco is nearly the same way. People of all races, ages and socioeconomic backgrounds are riding the Bay Area Rapid Transit, or BART, system. They travel to and from work every day from communities located outside of the city.
Now let's look at San Diego. When there's a Chargers game the trolley is packed. At certain times you have to wait for a couple of fully packed cars to pass through before you can even board. It reminds me of the New York subway. During the normal work week however, it is quite a different story. On a Monday morning the Trolley looks empty compared to New York's subways or the BART in San Francisco. Why? Southern California simply has not adopted the "public transit" culture yet. Most of us do not have to ride the trolley to work, or the public transit system simply takes too long.
As an individual who has been intensely involved in urban mixed-use development over the last six years, I have become a big fan of projects located on or within walking distance to a trolley station or public transportation node. San Diego is the 7th largest city in America for a reason; people simply love our climate and the resort-like lifestyle that our city offers. As more people move into the region and the population grows, there will be a pressing demand for high density housing located next to trolley stations. Our city will surely follow the lead of its older siblings: the Big Apple and Bay Area. We need to be prepared for this growth pattern and think intelligently about our future and the legacy our city will leave behind for our children and their children. Therefore, I encourage all to become educated on topics such as smart growth, the City of Villages, and Transit Oriented Development, or TOD. Besides being an efficient use of our land, our public infrastructure and our natural resources, these concepts help keep cars of the road, thus helping our city glow green.
-- JACOB SCHWARTZDate: 12/8/08 Larry asks if I believe that gas prices are going to stay this low. I think gas prices staying this low have about the same chances as a freak San Diego snowstorm hitting tomorrow. It's not going to happen. But I also think we'll have a bit of a break before they bounce back up to the $4.00 plus a gallon we were seeing earlier this year. So I agree with Jason and Watcher that this might be the best opportunity we've had in a long time to talk about either an increase in the gas tax or some sort of carbon tax, and I hope that our elected officials have the political courage to do it.
It wouldn't have to be a huge tax -- maybe 10 or 15 cents a gallon, but it would sure provide some badly needed revenue for retooling our transportation system for the next 100 years. After feeling the pain of gas at $4.00 a gallon this summer, gas at $2.50 or so doesn't seem so bad to me, especially if I knew that the tax dollars were going toward projects that would allow me to avoid driving at all in the future. But maybe I'm the only one. So far I'm still employed but I know many others are really tightening their belts. Let me know what you think -- would $2.50 per gallon gas be a financial strain? Would it ruin the economy (worse than it already is)? Would we really tar and feather our elected officials if they suggested such a thing?
-- KATHY KEEHANTuesday, December 2 -- 4:49 pm
|
Behind the Counter
A different local personality hosts Café San Diego every weekday (or at least that's what we're going for).
 Hosting Café San Diego is Meagan Wylie, marine conservation coordinator for San Diego Coastkeeper.
City Attorney's Office is tight-lipped, but mayor's rep says liability could drop.
Wednesday, January 7 -- 7:06 pm
How in the world did the real estate market free a Cunningham briber?
Wednesday, January 7 -- 3:55 pm
Agency kills negotiations on Ballpark Village, looks ahead to New Year.
Wednesday, January 7 -- 2:43 pm
SURVIVAL IN SAN DIEGO
A peek inside the under-construction Vantage Pointe.
Wednesday, January 7 -- 2:58 pm
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
Help readers get to know the new City Council president on a more personal level.
Wednesday, January 7 -- 1:46 pm
CAFÉ SAN DIEGO
Here's a look at the tangible results MPAs have yielded.
Tuesday, January 6 -- 4:30 pm
COMMENTARY: SLOP
Convicts find freedom, the former city manager of Chula Vista heads to Iraq, and more tidbits.
Tuesday, January 6 -- 7:22 pm
COMMENTARY: RICH TOSCANO
The median-based price indicators closed out a dismal 2008 with another monthly decline.
Tuesday, January 6 -- 4:06 pm
|
E-MAIL POST