.
Feedback

Danon vs. Roberts for County Supervisor Is First Change Since 1995

Candidates vie for 3rd District seat being vacated by Slater-Price; county budget nearly $5 billion.

Steve Danon would focus on keeping jobs in San Diego County. Dave Roberts would seek an office of small business development.

Voters filling the county Board of Supervisors seat being vacated by Pam Slater-Price were choosing Tuesday between Danon, chief of staff to Rep. Brian Bilbray, and Roberts, the deputy mayor of Solana Beach.

The race marks the first time since 1995 that a seat has opened up on the five-member board.

Slater-Price, whose District 3 stretches from Encinitas to Escondido and includes some northern San Diego areas, is retiring. The campaign to replace her focused largely on job creation and bolstering the economy.

Roberts cited experience in the government and private sectors, adding he helped create 3,200 jobs over a decade while working for a Fortune 500 company.

If elected, he would form an office of small business development, “which helps grow and incentivize small businesses to help in job creation and how to get through the red tape at the county in order to promote and create new jobs.”

The county should also focus on its tourism, culture and arts industries, Roberts said.

Cultural visitors to San Diego County spend twice as much as other visitors, it employs the equivalent of 20,000 full-time workers and brings in $70 million annually in tax revenue, Roberts said.

The military and veterans' communities in San Diego County were also critical, he added.

Danon, if elected, would collaborate with chambers of commerce, economic development organizations and business leaders to retain, recruit and create a healthier business environment to provide better paying jobs.

“First and foremost, we need to ensure that the jobs that have been created in San Diego stay in San Diego, so retention’s our number one priority,” Danon said.

Danon said the county's Department of Planning and Land Use could be streamlined to expedite the permitting process because “it should not take two
to seven years for businesses to get their permit to expand.”

Roberts also favored streamlining the DPLU’s business-permit process in part by getting plans approved in a more orderly fashion and reviewing open-ended fees.

Danon said he would try to end the Neighborhood Reinvestment Program, which provides $5 million in grant funds to county departments, public agencies and nonprofits each year.

The “slush fund,” if not completely eliminated through a supervisorial vote, should include a citizens review commission “so that every group and organization that applies for taxpayer dollars is thoroughly vetted,” Danon said.

Roberts said it should stay and that the supervisors run the program through an open and transparent process.

“I want that money to stay right here. It is an economic stimulus,” Roberts said. “This money goes for things such as veterans programs, for animal shelters, for domestic abuse survivors and their children, to support the community resource center—this is a critical program.”

Danon would work to reduce the supervisorial office budget and to end taxpayer-funded supervisor pensions in favor of a 401(k)-style program.

Roberts said as deputy mayor and as a city councilman he worked to reform the pension system and reduce costs in Solana Beach.

Danon’s priorities included creating a countywide regional firefighting authority and an ethics commission. Roberts stressed environmental and quality of life initiatives.

Roberts and Danon advanced to a runoff when neither received more than 50 percent of the vote in June primary election. Del Mar Mayor Carl Hilliard;
Bryan Ziegler, deputy county counsel; and Stephen Pate, a transportation coordinator in the film industry were knocked out of the race.

Incumbent supervisors Greg Cox and Dianne Jacob beat challengers outright in their June reelection bids.

Cox, whose district covers the county’s southern portion, had no trouble with Brant Will, a deputy city attorney in San Diego.

Jacob cruised to re-election for her East County seat against Rudy Reyes, an archaeologist who was severely burned in the 2003 Cedar Fire.

Combined, the supervisors represent about 3 million residents and oversee a nearly $5 billion budget.

—City News Service contributed to this report.

Newsletter & Alerts

Get the best stories each day and important breaking news

Subscribe

Not from Encinitas Patch? Find your Local Patch »

Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors. Write a new post... What's up? Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell something
Dr. Michele Drake June 19, 2013 at 11:50 am
The benefit garage and bake sale is this Saturday, June 22 from 7 a.m. to noon at 1463 Golden SunsetRead More Drive in San Marcos (San Elijo Hills). Here's the link to the event: http://encinitas.patch.com/groups/events/p/drake-center-garage-sale-to-benefit-autism-therapy-dog_3a2145e8
Dr. Michele Drake June 19, 2013 at 11:50 am
All donated items can be dropped off at The Drake Center, located at 195 N. El Camino Real inRead More Encinitas.
Mary E June 19, 2013 at 04:01 pm
do you get a donation receipt for tax purposes?
Vicki Campbell June 17, 2013 at 04:42 pm
Prop A will help residents and stop greedy developers from buying city council. Vote YES
Rick Moore June 18, 2013 at 09:27 am
I wholeheartedly agree with the recommendation that folks read the initiative. When you readRead More sections 6 and 9, you will see that Prop A sets a 30-foot or 2-story ceiling across the entire city, overriding lower height limits in many areas. The Downtown Specific Plan limits residences to 22-26 feet, as detailed on the DEMA website, so Prop A would actually allow the building of taller homes. It makes no exemptions or allowances for historic buildings like La Paloma, church towers or other structures over 30 feet high; the only exceptions are medical complexes and public high schools (see clause 6.2). Rebuilding or renovating (more than 50%) would require expensive public votes. Should the SRF be required to pay for an election to rebuild the Lotus Tower? Such contingencies are allowed for in our Historic Overlay Zone, which would clearly be overridden by Prop A. So is the Encinitas Preservation Association's plan to convert one of the boathouses to a museum. Again, Prop A would require an election (see section 4.1, clause e), which the EPA cannot afford. Prop A would thus favor large developers who have the money, time, lawyers and other resources to campaign for their project. How many nonprofits and small businessmen can afford to spend a minimum $30,000 just to get their project on a general election ballot (upwards of $300,000 for a special election like this one)? Yes, folks, please read the initiative, especially Section 9, which lays waste to anything that conflicts with it. That's why this has been dubbed Propzilla. I trust that most Encinitas citizens are smart enough to see that this meausre is deeply flawed, problematic and counter-productive. We can find much better ways to limit growth and preserve community character.
BlueAngel2 June 18, 2013 at 10:20 am
SAVE ENCINITAS FROM RANCID DEVELOPERS. VOTE YES ON PROP A!
BlueAngel2 June 15, 2013 at 09:47 pm
It would NOT surprise me. I thought we dumped Stocks. Why is he still around?
Encinitas YES on A June 16, 2013 at 02:44 pm
My YES on Prop. A sign was stolen yesterday. Other YES on Prop. A signs are disappearing. YetRead More another deceptive and untruthful mailer from the opponents of Prop. A was in my mail box. There's a shrillness and desperation in their opposition. They can't rely on facts and fair play. Polling data not looking good?
BlueAngel2 June 16, 2013 at 03:17 pm
YES ON PROP A will be victorious!
BlueAngel2 June 8, 2013 at 11:20 am
It just goes to show if Stocks or any of his puppets are involved, you will not hear the truth aboutRead More this proposition. They continue to confuse the issue. Please do not throw your vote away to ruin our city and enhance the developer's pockets who do not care what they do to our beautiful Encinitas. Vote YES on PROP A!
Status Quo June 19, 2013 at 11:53 am
Looks very much like your Prop A will pass, though 'BA2's tactic seems to be part of the problemRead More also.
TB-ENC June 7, 2013 at 02:01 pm
How is this not a racist group with Hispanics in California at 14 million second behind whites atRead More 14.8 million. We only need one chamber to represent all Californians.
BlueAngel2 June 8, 2013 at 02:09 pm
So any group other than white is a racist group?
Miranda Klassen June 5, 2013 at 10:39 am
Congrats to all on the groundbreaking. Reesey has done an incredible job with making Lux what it isRead More today!
BlueAngel2 June 4, 2013 at 10:40 am
Vote YES on PROP A! The City Council is not experienced in real estate, zoning, construction orRead More development to make decisions for us.
CardiffCreature June 4, 2013 at 10:44 am
Prop A will not control growth. It will make sure that BOTH the council and the public get toRead More directly weigh in on the deals being brokered between big developers and the city. This won't end the indirect developer subsidies, but it sure will help.
Lynn Marr June 6, 2013 at 02:26 am
Yes, it will help to slow growth, by making sure that the public approves raising height limits orRead More upzoning, for developments over the parameters of a MAXIMUM of 30 ft. and two stories. Lower set height limits will not be repealed, because they are not in conflict with the initiative or the General Plan. David Ahlgren's fear and speculation is not backed up by one single fact. He just raises the usual building industry "mantra" of alleged risks created by unnamed "unintended consequences." Council's attempt at a preemptive ordinance does NOT guarantee that will be placed on the ballot in 2014, and does NOT eliminate other loopholes such as the "less-than-5-acre" exception, the "categorization of intensity of use" exception, and the height limit exception. The only loophole that Council's drafted ordinance affects is Council's ability to vote by a 4/5 supermajority on upzoing if it is done with respect to a "significant public benefit." Not only is Council's recently drafted ordinance NOT guaranteed, in that a future Council could reverse it, if it is not enacted through a public vote, but also Council's attempt at preempting the "right to vote on upzoning and raising height limits initiative" DOESN"T eliminate the other loopholes that still exist in our General Plan, Policy 3.12., which exceptions I've spelled out, here.