S1: Coming up on KPBS roundtable. San Diego City Council made changes last week to the rules for a backyard apartments. They're looking to rein in large multi-unit developments for certain parts of the city. We'll discuss what's changed and what it could mean for housing production in San Diego.
S2: But they basically rolled it back a bit , and they discussed rolling the program back even more significantly over the next few months.
S1: Then a state bill to address cross-border pollution changes course , raising concerns about the viability of a long term fix. Plus , a look at other stories we've been following on the roundup. That's ahead on KPBS roundtable. In its ongoing quest to increase housing across the state , California has passed a number of laws to increase housing density. That includes allowing for more construction of so-called granny flats or accessory dwelling units. For its part , the city of San Diego went all in on these rules , creating its own Adu bonus program in 2020 as a way to help reach its housing production goals. But the program has had unintended consequences and sparked quite a bit of controversy. Some developers spotted an opportunity to build many ADUs , essentially little apartment complexes on a single residential property. Now , San Diego City Council has voted to scale back the Accessory Dwelling Unit bonus program , and more changes are likely. Coming here to talk about the latest on ADUs. I'm joined now by San Diego Union-Tribune reporter David Garrick. David , welcome to roundtable.
S2: Thanks for having me.
S1: So tell us about last week's City Council meeting and what actions they took on ADUs.
S2: Well , it was kind of a crazy meeting. It was a seven hour public hearing with hundreds of speakers and a lot of frustration and anger and a lot of negotiating on the dais by city council members , which you don't see all that often , but they basically rolled it back a bit , and they discussed rolling the program back even more significantly over the next few months. But the key action that they took was to shrink the zones where this bonus Adu program can happen. And the main goal was eliminating zones where the properties are large enough to allow what you were talking about , those sort of unscrupulous developers who go in and use the program in a way it wasn't intended to build , like 14 ADUs on one property that has a weird kind of bendy , windy shape to it. So they eliminated certain zones that have those properties with weird , bendy , wonky shapes to it and only made the program apply in zones where the properties are more traditionally shaped and sized.
S1:
S2: It's zones. There's the zones have complicated names like CES one seven and CES one eight and CES 110. So but in southeast San Diego will probably see the biggest change because there's a lot of , uh , there's a lot of properties in that part of town that had these odd shapes because it was sort of more of a rural area back on the old zoning , like from 50 , 60 , 70 years ago. But every every neighborhood in the city will have certain properties that were eligible before this change that will no longer be eligible after this change.
S1: Got it. So I want to zoom out a bit here.
S2: There are small backyard apartment , a lot of different names for them , but the idea was that the city is frustrated. There's not a lot of empty land to build giant housing developments anymore. You know , building an existing neighborhoods is complicated and expensive. And the city officials , starting about maybe 6 or 7 years ago , they started talking about these granny flats as a major solution because they're quick to build. You don't have to buy property to build one. You can build one in your backyard. They don't cost a homeowner that much relatively , and they're perfect because they don't really. The rent isn't that high , so they're good for senior citizens. They're good for students. So that's sort of the part of the the populace that is struggling to find housing. And they have another bonus. A homeowner that sort of struggling to pay their mortgage can add this Adu. And then they have this new revenue stream that helps them make sure they pay their mortgage. They can avoid foreclosure , maybe a little , a little , live a little more comfortably. So it's kind of a win win win in a lot of ways.
S1: How many ADUs have been built or permitted in San Diego in recent years.
S2: The number keeps growing year after year. They set a record in 2023 of 9909 , uh , and 2024. I don't have the numbers yet , but everyone seems to think it'll be even more. I don't have the numbers. Um , and then in 2022 , just in comparison , it was only 658 , 2021. The year before that , it was 871. So it sort of hovered between 500 and 1000. And then in 2023 it jumped to 1909 , and it was actually 20% of housing built in San Diego in 2023 were ADUs. So that's 20%. One out of five things that are built as an Adu. Interesting.
S1: Interesting. So yeah , having an impact for sure on housing production. But why was there so much controversy around the city's embrace of accessory dwelling units ? I mean , we talked a little bit about some examples where folks were building many ADUs on a single property. Break down the controversy a little more for me.
S2: Well , the controversy is that if you live in an old fashioned single family neighborhood , suddenly you have these new structures being built in your neighborhood , they sort of change the character of the neighborhood. They changed the look of the neighborhood. There's no limit on parking. So if it's a neighborhood where parking has been scarce , all of a sudden it's much more scarce because there's these new housing units that are there and there's no extra parking being created for them. There's additional problems is that the city had the most aggressive incentive in the state. They really rolled the rules back because they thought it was this , you know , panacea , a real solution. And they eliminated setbacks so you could build right up to the property line. Now they've since rolled that back. But there's been a lot of , you know , issues with those types of things and complaints from neighbors that it just changing the character of their neighborhood.
S1: Let's go back to this city council meeting. You've covered a lot of city council meetings in your time at the Union Tribune. You said this one was a bit different. Uh , tell me , tell me about that.
S2: As a reporter , you go in and you don't know what kind of usually you know , what kind of story you have. This is going to be a good story. It's going to be a really exciting story , or it's going to be kind of a minor story in relative terms. This is one where you just had no idea , because you didn't know what action the council was going to take. You didn't really know how it was going to turn out. And the number of speakers obviously also characterized it. There were hundreds of speakers. They were limited to one minute. Most of them were saying they wanted to roll back the Adu program. There were a small few who wanted to support it. Um , you know , it was just it's obviously an issue that draws a lot of public attention. And this meeting was an example of that. And then at the end of the meeting , you rarely get this. As a reporter. The city council was literally negotiating from scratch on the dais. They didn't have something to approve. Yes or no , thumbs up or thumbs down. It was like , hey , what do we want to do ? And individual city council members kept pitching ideas , and then the next guy would say , I'll take the half of that and I'm going to get rid of the other half , and then the next guy or woman would say , no , I hate all that. I'm going to start fresh. And for about two hours at the end of the hearing , you literally had them going back and forth in a kind of a crazy negotiation. It was like a craps game at the end of a city council meeting , negotiating what they were going to actually do , and they finally got one passed out of 6 to 3 vote.
S1: That sounds quite hectic. On the one hand , you wonder if that's the best way to do policymaking. On the other hand , it's maybe nice to have that transparency see how these things are being built. So who proposed scaling back the city's Adu program ? It's my understanding. It came came up a bit unexpectedly in recent weeks. Yes.
S2: Yes. Council member Henry Foster , who represents southeast San Diego District for some of the city's most low income areas , was frustrated about some unintended consequences with ADUs. And it was connected to another zoning thing that it's complicated that I won't get into. But he was particularly frustrated with the Adu bonus program , which he had learned a lot more about this winter in connection to some other problems in the neighborhood. And he decided , look at all these e-mails I'm getting from constituents. They all want to roll this back. I know my colleagues in other districts are getting the same kind of emails. It's time to roll this back.
S1: You had mentioned that during the very lengthy public comment portion of this city council meeting , most of the folks who spoke were speaking out against ADUs , but some were there to support it.
S2: Most people are scared that they're going to lose their housing or it's going to go up in price. There's a shortage of housing , and this is the fastest way to build housing that people can afford. So I think , you know , the idea is that any kind of housing that can be built , someone should support , that's sort of called a yimby. Yes , in my backyard approach , and it's a common one. And to those folks credit , they knew they were going to be outnumbered , and they still came out to speak because they wanted that particular perspective to be part of the discussion.
S1:
S2: I think the folks who hate the ADUs , instead of being , you know , excited or upbeat , they're sort of complaining that the that the rollback that happened the other night was really minor and and not as significant as some have made it out to be. Um , and they're complaining about the process that the city is going to follow for , for making additional changes. Um , so no one's happy. And I think City Hall , they're frustrated that it's being characterized as a retreat because they don't want to be seen as retreating on housing. So I have to say that if you if your solution makes everyone unhappy , maybe it's not a good solution. But I don't see a lot of cheering and celebrating so far. Interesting.
S1: Interesting. And it's worth noting the item passed 6 to 3 , but the three who voted no weren't exactly against scaling back the Adu program. In fact , it's my understanding they wanted to see it scaled back even further.
S2: They did. There was also some fear , though , about whether the state might step in if they if they scaled it back too far. It was a very complicated dynamic. They were in a weird high wire in the middle of two different camps. Interesting.
S1: Interesting. Well , your reporting noted that there are more changes likely coming to the cities Accessory Dwelling Unit program.
S2: It's basically when the city makes a lot of changes to a lot of different rules and policies and regulations. Some folks are frustrated by that because that means it won't happen until July or August. But I think these changes are big enough deal where they probably do deserve some debate and attention as opposed to doing them quickly. But the ones that the planning director of the city , Heidi Von Blum , has suggested , and these are just a starting point , um , are to require parking , uh , and for certain times for ADUs , which know right now parking is not required. When you build an Adu. You do not have to provide a parking spot. Requiring people who build ADUs to pay fees for infrastructure and community amenities like libraries and fire stations. Um , and then , uh , reducing how close an Adu can be built to a property line. Uh , those are the three sort of major ones that have been discussed. But but the city has said we're open to other changes and other reforms. People are welcome to propose , and council members are welcome to oppose any ideas that they have.
S1: And you said that's part of the land development.
S2: It's once a year. The city decides to make about 100 or so changes to all of its rules and regulations regarding planning and development. Uh , and it's going to be included as part of that package.
S1: It sounds scintillating. Mark your calendars. The City council announced a plan as well to allow homeowners to sell ADUs.
S2: So not only do we want lower income folks to be able to rent a place , but theoretically , we'd love lower income folks. We as a city would love lower income folks to be able to buy a place. And this is another way to make home affordability a possibility for for some people. Um , you know , an Adu , what will it sell for ? Depending on the size , depend on the neighborhood may not end up being as affordable as as people would like , but at least it's going to be an option now.
S1: It's worth noting that the city of San Diego and Mayor Todd Gloria specifically had previously touted the Adu bonus program as an important piece of the city's plan to build more housing , and the city is certainly in desperate need of more housing.
S2: Our program is a good program. Uh , the problem is that there's a few rare properties that are shaped oddly , and unscrupulous developers found those , and they are using those to create these Adu farms. Critics call them , and they say once the reform comes in that you know , that that'll solve a lot of it. The other folks that are more against it say that the parking change has to happen. But if a developer , if a person who owns a property has to provide a parking spot for their Adu person , that's maybe going to make a lot of situations where an Adu would have been built. An Adu will no longer get built.
S1:
S2: He has to make common sense reforms. He sort of conceded that , you know , that some unintended things may have happened with the added bonus program , and that he's willing to explore what he calls common sense reforms.
S1: Before we wrap up , I want to turn to another piece of housing news that you've been covering , which is the potential changes for how historic preservation is used and applied in San Diego , especially as it relates to housing.
S2: They feel like sometimes these rules that protect historic structures prevent developers from developing the housing that the city needs. Uh , they feel like it's been about two decades since the city has reviewed its housing historical preservation rules. Uh , and that they feel like it's time to review those rules , but that the main goal is to change the rules in a way to allow more housing development so that these rules don't get in the way of development.
S1: And there's also talk about changing the Mills Act. Now remind us what is that and what are.
S2: The two main changes they discussed. One is making the Historic Resources Board less powerful. And the second one is to scale back the Mills Act. That's a state law that says if you build if you buy a historic home and you spend money refurbishing it , getting it back to its original , historic , you know , appearance , you get a property tax break. It's. But there's 400 cities in California. Only about 90 of them participate. But in those 90 cities , they give a lot of property tax breaks. The benefit is historic homes get preserved , but the city feels like maybe too many. It's being used too often and it's too easy to get accepted. So they're talking about scaling back how many people get approvals , making it a competitive process. So you'd have to compete against your neighbor to get a mills act approval. Um , and again , those are situations where instead of those houses being preserved as single family homes , maybe that could be torn down and turned into an apartment complex or a larger , more dense housing development , and that would increase the housing supply.
S1: Another notable potential policy change to housing production in San Diego. I've been speaking with David Garrick from the San Diego Union-Tribune. David , thanks.
S2: Thanks very much.
S1: Coming up , a state bill aimed at addressing the cross-border sewage crisis was quietly scaled back , raising concerns from conservation advocates. That's just ahead on roundtable. You're listening to KPBS roundtable. I'm Scott Rodd. San Diego's South Bay communities have for years been affected by cross-border sewage flows from the Tijuana River. The pollution has had an impact on the region's water and air quality , leading to health concerns from residents on both sides of the border. Looking for a solution to the decades long crisis has proven to be complicated. Very complicated. Late last year , state legislators revealed an effort to raise funds for conservation of the area , but now the focus of that legislation has been narrowed. This latest news comes as the Trump administration announced a retreat on many environmental protections , adding uncertainty to conservation efforts nationwide. Here to talk more about this is Philip Salata. He is an investigative reporter covering the environment and energy for I. News source. Philip , welcome to roundtable.
S3: Nice to meet you , Scott.
S1: So the state bill you wrote about in your latest story , SB ten , was introduced at the end of last year by San Diego State Senator Steve Padilla. Remind us what that bill originally aimed to address.
S3: So I thought it would be worth just zooming back a little bit. Um , so kind of to the origins of the bill. So earlier last year , Imperial Beach City Council , they adopted a resolution asking the San Diego Association of Governments , or Sandag , the local transportation , the local transportation agency , to establish a fund that would go to environmental mitigation projects and other infrastructure needs in the South Bay. So they were looking at the Otay Mesa East Port of Entry , the new port of entry that's being built on the border as a source for this money , and especially because the busier the border gets , the more impactful it is on the surrounding communities. So they were looking at asking for 1% of revenue. So that is roughly about $25 million a year , uh , to create this environmental mitigation fund. Um , so I think what's important about it also is that it would be the first fund of its kind , and it would establish an ongoing source of funds for a problem that , as you said , has lasted decades. And honestly , as the region continues to grow , it will , you know , continue to be an increasing challenge.
S1:
S3: Right ? So instead of just looking at infrastructure issues like fixing the southwest , South Bay International Water Treatment Plant , uh , it would look at restoration projects , things in the estuary there. Uh , and the , you know , Tijuana River Valley is an expansive region that spans on both sides of the border and envelops all sorts of different types of environment between marine land , estuary environments. So it's quite open ended. And it's also a budding , you know , the South Bay communities that , you know , fold basically into those areas and are affected by all the impacts of pollution on the border there. So that's where SB ten kind of originated. But the main point was that , um , Sandag didn't really have the legal framework to be able to set up this kind of fund. So that's when Senator Steve Padilla announced SB ten , which would basically kind of create that legal framework to create this kind of a fund. During that announcement , Senator Steve Padilla specifically spoke about how it would be used to create these mitigation and restoration projects and to fund them long term. And that really generated a lot of excitement. Right ? So this was one of the first overarching plans for the region.
S1: And so you're talking about a pretty ambitious effort to address these issues , not just looking narrowly at infrastructure , but much broader than that. A lot of times people think sewage issues. Well , it's just , you know , fix up some pipes , fix up. You know , the treatment plants were good to go , but you're saying this looked at a much broader effort in its started as a local focus at first , but the state needed to get involved.
S3: Exactly right. And yeah , of course. And as you say , you know , the Tijuana River sewage crisis has always been addressed in a kind of piecemeal way. And so to actually focus on something that has a long term effect and that looks into the all the different kinds of ways that projects can be planned to restore the area was was quite an anomaly , right.
S1: But SB ten has changed , right ? There's been a shift with the bill and it's been narrowed. So tell me about what is being proposed now under SB ten.
S3: So very specific language was struck from the bill. Uh , the main words that were struck are literally that the funds would be used for environmental mitigation and restoration of the Tijuana River valley and adjoining lands. So that was cut. And in its place was where new words write to assist in the maintenance of the South Bay International Boundary and Water Commission sewage treatment facility. And so , basically , from this larger overarching goal , we have something very specific. It's to focus on all of the kind of long term infrastructure needs , specifically at that plant. So I think what's important to mention here is that the source , at least one of the sources of the pollution crisis is that plant that has been underinvested for decades. So because of underinvestment , and this is something that the federal government , you know , especially now under Commissioner Marilyn Joyner , they've been saying this as well. Underfunding has caused a lack of repairs that , over time have caused sewage spills and basically the , you know , the 100 billion gallons of sewage that spilled there since 2018. Uh , part of that is , is a result of those missed repairs and that lack of funding.
S1:
S3: Right. So now we're looking at specifically those repairs. What would be left out ? Well , in California , nearly 90% of our state's estuaries have been eradicated. And and that river valley has absorbed an incredible amount of sewage. And that estuary is also a home to endangered and rare birds. It's also a stop on the Pacific Flyway. So millions , up to billions of of migrating birds pass through this area and stop. And these estuaries are critical places for as a part of their travel and and their migration throughout. From the tip of South America to the very tip of North America. So they're critical habitats. And once again , and the other issue is that as the sewage flows have been pouring through the river , also a lot of sediment comes with those flows , and the sediment basically blocks off the estuary from being able to take in and flush out all the water that builds up in it and all the , all the raw sewage , and that also basically asphyxiate the fish in the estuary. And there are fish die offs that come as a result of that. So basically , the entire ecosystem gets shaken up by the fact that it's absorbing such a huge amount of sewage. So those things right now , as Senator Padilla described , they're not off the table. They're just not a part of this bill anymore.
S1: You mentioned that the announcement of SB ten got a lot of buzz. However , the shift in the legislation , these recent changes was done fairly quietly. Right.
S3:
S1: And quickly explain the documentary program within news source.
S3: Well , that's kind of interesting. So the San Diego documentaries , it's a local program run by news source , but it's a part of a national network of similar programs that pay community members to go to public meetings and take notes. And then I news source takes those notes , fact checks them and then publishes them and makes them public. So it's quite an interesting network. It's an opportunity for community members to get paid for civic participation , but also for us as as reporters that I news source , it's quite a great reach into the community of eyes and ears of folks who are paying attention to what's going on and can you know when , when , when they trigger things that are obviously going to require some more , deeper reporting where we can jump in there and , and do some more work and report out these questions that , that they flag.
S1:
S3: And that's when I came on this marked up bill. Right. That looked quite different from from the you know , what I read originally in the language to , to what I'm seeing now.
S1: You spoke with Democratic California State Senator Steve Padilla.
S3: I understand this is more of keeping the same goal , but funneling money to a specific problem that can be addressed in an efficacious way , because there's already something to funnel it into. Um , and again , so I , you know , I think it's really important to remember this is one of the main sources of the problems. And the funding for building out and repairing the treatment plant has already been secured. But what's not secured are funds to make sure to maintain it for years to come. So it's all well if we fix it , build it out. But if that funding is not coming in , uh , that's going to be a problem in the long run. Potentially the same the same one we're in right now. And I said in there , Padilla said. And I think this is quite accurate. You know , the funding structures for these federal projects are quite erratic. You know , where as we speak , in the middle of a moment where we might have a government shutdown around a budget approval. So from his perspective , This is a chance to find a different source that has a long term , uh , potential for kind of keeping that plant well-financed.
S1: And I want to get to some of the uncertainty around the federal funding.
S3: So a spokesperson for Wild Coast told me that they were looking forward to a more holistic approach that the bill proposed and that they say is very needed. Yes , maintaining the wastewater plant is one part of the solution , she said. But restoration is a critical part of addressing these issues as a whole. She also mentioned that we're dealing with a community that's dealt with a lot of upsets to big promises. Right. And so this change kind of struck a chord for some. Uh , there's another organization , San Diego Coast Keeper , and they're currently in litigation with the federal government and the French multinational company Veolia that's managing the federal plant. And they also said yes , they support the bill , but expressed serious concern that the funds would be so constricted.
S1: And let's dive into those lawsuits a little deeper. Uh , there was , uh , there was also a local school district that filed a lawsuit as well. Tell me more about , like , what the lawsuits are alleging. What's there ? What's the goal behind these lawsuits ? Right.
S3: Uh , so there's a new one as as you're speaking about right now , Coronado Unified School District , uh , which is an interesting point , right. Uh , Coronado is up the coast from Imperial Beach. So we see that these this problem is , is expanding and it's affecting more and more folks throughout the region. And so , I mean , that would make , I think , around five major lawsuits against the federal government and Veolia. And so basically , the lawsuits are alleging that the company under the federal government have been reckless and negligent in how they've managed that plant and that they haven't complied with the mandates of the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board , which this year cited the company , or I guess actually last year cited the company and the federal government of public nuisance from all the fumes that were emerging from the plant when the pump went down. So they're basically saying because of mismanagement of its portion of the sewage , it exposed South Bay residents to all sorts of toxic chemicals. And now that's expanding beyond the South Bay. So people have been reporting all sorts of illnesses that they attribute to the sewage. So nausea headaches , respiratory issues. And they also say that their livelihoods and businesses have been impacted by the sewage crisis. And so people are also seeking compensation for that.
S1: And so we were talking about SB ten , this state bill that would initially had a much broader focus was going to address a number of issues surrounding this sewage pollution problem. It's since been narrowed to focus on the treatment plants. There have also been some lawsuits , as you were just describing , which focus on some of the impacts , right , for different communities from this pollution. I want to talk a little bit about the federal government because they are a key player in all of this. You had mentioned that funding for the treatment plant , the sewage treatment plant that's on the US side has gotten federal funding.
S3: Um , so yes , funding for the plant , the fixes and the build out that will basically double capacity of the South Bay International Water Treatment Plant. They are secured. But you know , the fixes themselves and this build out process , it's going to take at least five years. Now , I was just at a meeting in San Isidro with the International Boundary and Water Commission , where , um , Commissioner Jenner told the public that the rollout process would kind of come out in phases so that they could try to increase capacity , uh , basically as the project is getting built out. But at the same time as these repairs are happening , right , we're still getting spills. There have been several in the last weeks to months. And those spills , I mean , not only is that more sewage in the river , but it also , you know , it can slow down repairs. So I think we're dealing with a pretty flexible , Uh , to say the least , uh , time frame. And then , of course , all of that also depends on how , uh , Mexican authorities roll out their projects. So it's I mean , in this sense , it's a very binational problem. Will it , uh , fix the sewage crisis in total ? Absolutely not. I mean , that plant is just one part of a larger , struggling wastewater system that straddles both sides of the border.
S1: And last question , to sort of draw back a little bit and look what the federal government's doing this week , Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lee Zeldin announced a slew of new changes to deregulate certain environmental protections. That's signaling a broader shift in federal government policy.
S3: They sounded alarms. Right. And Mr. Zeldin , announcement of deregulation. Right. One of the elements includes , quote , reconstituting the Science Advisory Board and Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee. So I don't think that bodes very well. So cuts to federal agencies weaken how we can respond and diminish the resources that we can put toward identifying environmental and public health problems. I that's the scene we're working with. It's really hard to tell what's going to happen. It's changing minute by minute. Right. But I think one thing that's very important is this is really not a partisan issue. It's also not necessarily an issue that's tied with the kind of energy policies that the EPA was speaking about in this last announcement. Um , but and I will say local leaders are working on it in a quite bipartisan way and , uh , and are insisting that to move it out of this realm of politics , that it's actually just a direct question of public health. But I do want to say one thing to all of that is that the sewage crisis is , in part , a result of US economic policies that have encouraged corporations to build out industry on the border , that caused a growth that outpaced the building of critical infrastructure. So we are facing a whole new , you know , vantage point right now.
S1: I'm sure you're reporting will be digging into that for many weeks and months and possibly years to come. Uh , Philip Salata is an investigative reporter with Inews. Source. Philip , thanks for joining Round Table.
S3: It was a pleasure.
S1: Up next we check in on some other stories we've been following this week on the roundup. That's ahead on roundtable. You're listening to KPBS PBS roundtable. I'm Scott rod. Okay. It's time for us to catch up on some other stories. This from this week on our weekly roundup. Joining me is KPBS producer Andrew Bracken. Hey , Andrew.
S4: Hey , Scott. How's it going ? Good , good.
S1: Take it away. I'll let you start this week.
S4: Well , I don't think we've talked about it on the show , but there's the news of the trash fee that's coming for single family homeowners. Uh , for a long time , single family homeowners have not paid for trash pickup. And that changed with the vote in 2022 to establish. Yeah , some sort of , uh , trash fees. Last month , the city released some plan fees about how much it would cost homeowners. It's like around $50. It depends like the size of the bin , what you get picked up and stuff , but range from 40 some dollars to to up to like $65 a month. And I think that surprised some people. And , you know , again , these homeowners are not used to paying for trash at all. So Crystal Niblett from I Newsource just has a piece on one , sort of. I found it kind of obscure way that seemed to go. Homeowners may be able to put a stop to the trash fee. Ultimately it would be something via a majority protest , which I hadn't heard about , but this was something that was passed in the 90s that prevents , um , raising of certain government fees. If , you know , a majority of folks object to it , you know , file a protest. So this impacts , you know , not not everyone. It's just single family homeowners. So not people in apartments , condos , things like that. But it still impacts , you know , I think she says like over 230,000 properties in the city. And the city council is looking into these fees , and they're meeting mid-April to choose whether to move forward with them. So I just thought that proposition 218 is what it's called , and provided a little insight into this kind of obscure piece of our democracy.
S1: Yeah , well , and that's democracy at work , right ? There's a lot of twists and turns and curiosities to it. I remember that vote from 2022. So this idea that it was passed by all the voters. But then there might be this pushback from the folks that it's actually going to impact. Yeah , yeah. And maybe it'll be scaled back. Interesting. I'm looking forward to seeing how this rolls out. And if they get enough votes to actually scale it back , and then what happens from there ? Nice. Well , I got another local story. This one was from our very own Cory Suzuki , KPBS , South Bay and Imperial County Reporter. The headline from his story was Imperial County's oldest LGBTQ+ center faces questions over its move away from trans rights. So this is really revealing reporting , nuanced reporting. It unearthed some tensions within the LGBTQ+ community in Imperial County. The leader of the center out in Imperial County has been questioned over some of her actions and stances , particularly towards trans individuals , the trans community. This leader had solicited guidance from groups that some have deemed hate groups because of their actions and positions on transgender issues. The center is also rebranding to the Donnelly Community Service Center , removing LGBT from its name. This was also looked at as perhaps some erasure of folks within the community. There's also a complaint from a former employee who is trans for me. One Corey's reporting was done very thoughtfully , very sensitively , and weighed all sides of what was happening here. It also shows that within communities , especially ones that are often disadvantaged or oppressed , it can be easy to think well. They are all thinking in a similar direction or moving in a similar direction. But a lot of times within those groups , there may be subsets of communities that are further oppressed or disadvantaged. And I think Corey's reporting really illuminated that. Yeah.
S4: Yeah. And one thing also that I really appreciated in the story is that it It told the story of the founder of the center , Rosa Diaz , who kind of goes into why she originally wanted to to found it in her own LGBTQ identity and not having a space in this rural area like it. And now she as the founder. But she is part of this rebrand , and it's sort of interesting , like how her experience mirrors some of the younger people that are almost , you know , featured in his reporting as well. And then kind of a related story. I thought I'd mention San Diego FC. They're playing their second ever home match this weekend , and they played their first one a couple weeks back and they tied. They're doing really well on the field. But one thing that really kind of overshadowed that first match was there were some homophobic chants during that game. They were eventually addressed by the PA announcer towards the end of the match , but it left a lot of people feeling uneasy and a little disappointed from that that initial match , and in response , the team now has has vowed to have more security , more messaging. I think they're going to be quicker to to kick out fans if it happens again. So it'll be interesting to see. This weekend is her second match , so we'll see how that pans out.
S1: Yeah , that was a really unfortunate blemish on the home opener because that's what stole a lot of the headlines , which was very unfortunate. I'm going to go national. There was a story in the New York Times about Doge , our favorite topic , the Department of Government Efficiency , that is Elon Musk's venture under President Donald Trump to essentially scale back cut , uh , federal funding and , uh , basically the federal rolls to try to save money. And there's been a ton of really good accountability reporting on Doge and its many errors and over statements when it comes to how much money it's actually saved. This latest story from The New York Times revealed that this idea of Doge being , quote , maximally transparent , which is what Elon Musk has promised. It's it's far from it. They're actually now basically just posting numbers without anything that's traceable. The New York Times found some clever ways to trace back some of these claims , and found that they , again , have overstated. There's a misunderstanding of how a lot of this spending works from Doge. Uh , but again , it's disappointing to see that there's now just no way really to trace these claims about spending. And so this idea of accountability and transparency , it's just sort of out the window.
S4: Yeah , I mean , I read some of the reporting , but I have to say , Scott , I think I'm at this point I'm all I'm all dodged out. I don't know how much more Doge I can do.
S1: Well , we don't have to keep talking about it. We'll get out of Doge.
S4: Well , kind of related to Doge. I do have another piece , actually , from the New York Times. It was a story on a study on how humans sort of misperceived dogs emotions. Doge to dog was. Yeah , yeah. So , um , it turns out we're not that great at just like , you know , interpreting how our dogs are feeling or doing. And this study , it used video to kind of change the context of dog behavior. And it turns out , you know , so they might have a video of a dog with a leash. And we would interpret it as , oh , the dog's really happy or , you know , a certain way. But in reality , that dog may have been reacting to a vacuum cleaner or something that may spur anxiety in that case. So anyway , it was just sort of an interesting insight into human biases of our dogs. And as a dog owner , you know , I , I'm often thinking about that of like how we try to humanize our pets in ways that may not always be accurate.
S1: Well , I'm also a dog owner , and I only interpret unconditional , pure love from my dog. So I don't know about this.
S4: Study , so don't read it. Yeah , don't read that story then. Yeah.
S1: Yeah. Anyways , I've been speaking with KPBS , Andrew Bracken , thanks for joining the roundup.
S4: Thanks , Scott.
S1: Thanks for listening to KPBS roundtable. You can listen to the show anytime as a podcast. Roundtable airs on KPBS FM at noon on Fridays and again Sundays at 6 a.m.. If you have any thoughts on today's show , you can email us at roundtable at PBS.org. You can also leave us a message at (619) 452-0228. Roundtable's technical producer this week was Brandon Truffaut. This show was produced by Andrew Bracken. Brooke. Ruth is Roundtable's senior producer. Supervising producer is Quinn Owen. I'm Scott Rodd. Thanks for listening. Have a great weekend.
