presents
Voter’s Edge California
Get the facts before you vote.
Brought to you by
MapLight
League of Women Voters of California Education Fund
KPBS Voters Guide@KPBSNews
June 5, 2018 — California Primary Election
Local

City of San DiegoCandidate for City Council, District 6

Photo of Matt Valenti

Matt Valenti

Father/Attorney/Business Executive
2,655 votes (8.6%)
Use tab to activate the candidate button. Use "return" to select this candidate. You can access your list by navigating to 'My Choices'.
For more in-depth information on this candidate, follow the links for each tab in this section. For most screenreaders, you can hit Return or Enter to enter a tab and read the content within.
Candidate has provided information.

My Top 3 Priorities

  • Demanding transparency and accountability at City Hall.
  • Fighting for the needs of residents, families, and small businesses--not special interests.
  • Advocating smart solutions to the affordable housing and homelessness crisis.

Experience

Education

National University (current)
Mesa College (current)
Thomas Jefferson School of Law (current)

Who supports this candidate?

Organizations (1)

  • Save San Diego Neighborhoods

Questions & Answers

Questions from KPBS and the League of Women Voters of San Diego (5)

Should the Community Review Board on Police Practices be given subpoena power when reviewing allegations of officer misconduct? Why or why not?    
Answer from Matt Valenti:

Yes. Transparency and accountability is just as important for law enforcement as it is for lawmakers. Sunlight is always the best disinfectant, and while the SDPD is one of the finest law enforcement forces in the nation, every police department has its share of bad apples. The purpose of the review board is to provide a layer of community oversight, and without meaningful authority to conduct investigations into serious complaints, the board cannot fulfill its purpose. Giving the board more tools to investigate would bring it in line with the county's law enforcement review board. It's a common-sense approach that will increase the community's trust in law enforcement and help ensure that law enforcement can continue to protect and serve the public.

Should the city eliminate minimum parking requirements for new housing near public transit? Why or why not?
Answer from Matt Valenti:

No. A sensible number of parking spots will still be needed. There is simply no denying that many San Diegans are dependent on cars to get to work, school, and recreational opportunities. Parking requirements can be loosened depending on the actual capacity of public transit and ridesharing to get people where they need to go, but they should not be eliminated entirely.

Would you support a tax increase that would fund housing and services to the homeless? Why or why not?
Answer from Matt Valenti:

San Diego taxpayers are already heavily burdened. Any time they are asked to pay more, it needs to be for programs and services that are effective, efficient, and well-designed. Unfortunately, the current leadership at City Hall has proven time and time again to be both incompetent and negligent in its use of tax dollars to fund appropriate homeless services. The Hepatitis A epidemic is Exhibit A in this regard, but there are many others. The current initiative on the ballot to increase taxes for homeless programs is really just a Trojan horse to increase taxes in order to expand the Convention Center—which is a dubious plan at best, a boondoggle at worst. It’s this kind of dishonest politics that taxpayers—and the homeless themselves—have suffered from for far too long.

Do you support increasing housing density in your council district? Why or why not?
Answer from Matt Valenti:

Yes, but only in the right places. District 6 has areas that can easily accommodate more density, but also areas, such as parts of Clairemont, which are already too dense for the available infrastructure. While increasing density is good for adding to the stock of affordable housing without expanding into our already overburdened canyons and back country, new developments must be planned properly so as to preserve the qualities of our communities which we cherish.

Do you support either of the plans on the November ballot that would sell the Mission Valley stadium site? Why or why not?
Answer from Matt Valenti:

No. The proponents of SoccerCity have not been transparent about their intentions, and are misleading the public by implying that they can bring a Major League soccer team to San Diego. The Friends of SDSU proposal is likewise rife with uncertainty and empty promises, and though it uses the good name of SDSU to entice voters, it’s still the product of big developers who cannot be trusted to give the public accurate and truthful information about the proposal. Empty promises of attracting an NFL team, ML soccer team, or other shiny objects held before the voters should be disregarded for what they are: phony PR tactics. 

It’s important to remember that the Mission Valley site is owned by the city, and therefore by the people and taxpayers of San Diego. It should not be given away to fast-talking land grabbers who make pie-in-the-sky promises they have no intention of delivering. Development of the site will affect the land and the city for generations to come. We should not be rushed to decide the best use of the property by lobbyists and PR people who don’t have the best interests of San Diego at heart, but only want to make a quick buck off of public resources.

I'll be voting "no" on both intitatives, and as councilmember will fight for an open, transparent process for developing this valuable public asset. 

Please share this site to help others research their voting choices.

PUBLISHING:PRODUCTION SERVER:PRODUCTION