The San Diego Union-Tribune Editorial Board interviewed four candidates in the 53rd Congressional District race ahead of the March 3, 2020, primary election in which the top two vote-getters will advance to a runoff election in November. Below is the transcript of our Dec. 12, 2019, interview with Democrat Georgette Gómez, who is running to succeed Susan Davis in a district that includes western El Cajon, eastern Chula Vista, parts of central and eastern San Diego as well as Bonita, La Mesa, Lemon Grove and Spring Valley. This interview was transcribed using the digital transcription service Temi and checked for accuracy by a staffer. To call any errors to our attention or to ask any questions about our interviews, please email matthew.hall@sduniontribune.com with the subject line “election interviews.”
Union-Tribune: Thanks for joining us. Tell us why you decided to run for Congress.
Georgette Gómez: Yeah. Well, first of all, thank you for having me and for covering the 53rd. Truly appreciate it. Um, well I’m going to start by acknowledging that, um, when I first ran, uh, there was a lot of skepticism that I was going to be able to win. And, uh, and then I mean (when I) won people were skeptical in how I was going to engage as an elected. So I feel that I have proven that A) I can win an election, uh, but then more importantly that I’ve been able to work with everybody at council, both Republicans and Democrats, uh, to really get things done. Um, it’s, for me, it’s, uh, it is, that’s the reason that I, that I first ran, and this is uh, another reason as to why I’m continuing to want to represent our region now at the, at the federal level to really bring the perspective of the community in government, but also more importantly to, to really move the needle, the needle forward, to address issues such as issues related to housing affordability, uh, the climate crisis. Uh, really addressing poverty in our, in our region. And, uh, I’ve been able to move a little bit on those issues. I mean the, getting the inclusionary housing adopted and uh, that was done by getting everybody at the table. It took me a while to get there, but we were able to introduce it and get it adopted and with a policy that’s not going to get vetoed. So that’s a good thing. Um, but it really is about ensuring that A) we are addressing the core issues of people’s quality of life, but then secondly, doing it in the way that people are going to support it. So I have proven that I can do that and this is why I’m running because I think we need electeds that are able to be focused on issues related to people’s lives, but also do it in a way that it’s solution driven and it’s not just continue to fight for the purposes of fighting. So I want to bring that perspective to the federal government and, uh, I believe that I’m going to prove people wrong again, that I’m going to win this election and really represent the region in a strong way. So that’s why.
Meet the other candidates in this race below.
The candidates we interviews for the 53rd Congressional District are Jose Caballero, Sara Jacobs, Georgette Gomez and Janessa Goldbeck.
A: Did you... when did you first have your eyes set on Congress? Obviously Susan’s departure, let a lot of dominoes start moving, but did you have your eyes set on that earlier?
A: Well, no. Well, no, I didn’t. So, um, coming in...
A: And not necessarily her seat but just, Congress in general.
A: Right, Congress overall. So I, I’ve, I mean I’ve nibbled on some of the issues related to Congress. I mean, when they introduced the border policy, the, the ordinance to have, uh, the resolution to have the city of San Diego have an actual position on the border wall, that’s because I care about the relationships that we have in the fact that I’m a, a product of... my parents immigrated to, uh, to San Diego. So those are issues that are tied to the federal government. The district that I currently represent has a huge refugee community. In fact, the Muslim community, those are issues that are under attack right now at the federal government, at the federal level. And I’ve not been able to, aside from supporting the community, um, and I’ve gone to the lobbying trips that the chamber of commerce organizes to really bring that perspective. So I, I do care about those issues in a significant way. Um, but there’s limitations as a local elected. Did I have my eyes on Congress? Uh, to an extent, but not really. Um, but there was an opportunity that was, that came and, um, I mean, I was in the path of reelection. Um, so it wasn’t something that I was thinking about. Um, but if the opportunity opened up and they thought about it, and I think there’s, uh, there’s my, my, um, the landscape on this issues that I care about have opened up and I know that I’m going to be working on issues like immigration, like our refugee community. Will continue to work on issues related to the housing crisis, continue to work on pushing forward and making sure that as the region develops a transit vision, that the federal government is helping and making that a reality. So a lot of issues that I’m working on right now at the city council level, will continue at the federal level, but then there’s other issues that I really want to also engage.
Q: Congress is pretty much a mess right now.
A: Yeah.
Q: A lot of division. Um, talk to me a bit about how you would approach that, what you would do... and kind of along the lines of your inclusionary housing proposal, which you brought up. Obviously as you said, that was a long road to passage, but it seems like you did bring a lot of people to the table, particularly at the end — business community and builders.
A: Yeah, I mean that’s the same approach that I’ll have in (Washington) D.C., Which is, I mean, when I started the inclusionary ordinance update, which was a year ago, I did that with the intention of bringing stakeholders to the table. So everybody that came at the end together supporting the update, were at the table since day one. Um, so we had had, we had many conversations from, “developers are greedy” to, there’s a, “the cost of developing housing is very costly.” “We need to reduce that cost to help, for developers to do the right thing.” “They need support.” So, from labor, making sure that whomever is building the housing, that it’s done with a local hire, what prevailing wages and everything. So we had a spectrum of conversations for the whole year. I was able to listen to everything and I thought the first attempt that I had in introducing the ordinance was a reflection of everything that was being said to me in terms of how the policy could be updated. But it didn’t, uh, because at that time, uh, labor was in support, the community members were in support, but the building industry and the chamber of commerce was not in support. So obviously there were still issues that I needed to address. Did I give up? No, I didn’t. I continue having them at the table. We had the conversation and uh, to the very end I was working with the business community. I could have chosen to reject it and just either bring something forward and go through the same motions. But my intention was I, I, I wanted to update that outdated policy. That was my commitment to the issue. Um, and uh, it would’ve been easy for me to walk away, but I couldn’t do that because there are people that are depending on making sure that housing is being built, that it’s affordable for folks. That to me is my commitment and making sure that the issues that are impacting people’s quality of life — from housing, from better jobs, education — are being addressed. So if I can move the needle a little bit forward, while, really bringing all the people that are, that have a stake, which I think that’s what you need to do as an elected to really be able to do real change and real updates, you need, you cannot ignore a single person. You might not agree with them, but it makes no sense to ignore them. That’s been my approach since I’ve been at city hall, uh, to ensure that everybody that has an impact on the issue that I’m managing, that I’m facilitating, that they’re at the table and at the end of the day have progress and move forward a solution to those issues. That’s what I’ll bring to D.C. as well.
“That to me is my commitment and making sure that the issues that are impacting people’s quality of life — from housing, from better jobs, education — are being addressed.”
— Georgette Gómez
Q: We had an editorial today that said that gains that we’ve been making on homelessness are kind of at risk because the public still seems, increasingly seems, fed up and doesn’t believe progress is being made. And so we saw Mark Ridley Thomas, who’s the co-chair of the state task force on homelessness, change his mind and vote to petition the Supreme court to allow the recriminalization of being, you know, sleeping in public. So do you worry that the public doesn’t perceive progress? Do you perceive progress? What do you think? How do you think... How do you rate what the city’s done with homelessness?
A: Yeah, no, I mean, A) I do think that we need to do a better job at reporting what we’re doing. Um, and, and really show this is what we’re doing. I mean, we opened up several, uh, emergency shelters and we have located, we have a, um, placed people from those shelters into permanent supportive housing. Right. But so we need to show that story. I don’t think that story’s being told the way that it should. And that’s our fault for not doing that. Um, not only are we, um, putting, uh, transitioning people to, to real, to, to real supportive housing, but we’re also connecting some of those folks that are in the shelters at the emergency shelters to their original families as well. So there’s like different areas that people are moving to. Um, I’m not saying that it’s perfect, but it is moving people to a better place from either reuniting them to their families or giving them the support that they need, tying them to better, uh, a better structure that they need to be able to restore themselves. Um, and yes, and it is true there are still folks that are staying at the shelters for longer than they should because we don’t have a place to, to locate them to. So are we doing progress? Yes. Is it enough? No, it isn’t. So A) the local, the, I mean this is another reason why I want to go to D.C. because now I understand what the local challenges are in terms of how much... There’s only so much the local government can do and there’s only so much the state is going to be able to do. If you add those two, those two, the state and the local, it’s not enough. The federal government has to do more. And uh, that’s what I wanna to do as well. Influence what the federal government is doing. Even the support that we’re getting for sheltering our veterans. Some of the requirements that are being tied to that money, it’s not based on reality. The city of San Diego is actually giving money back because we’re not finding qualified, um, clients. And that’s based on those requirements. So we need to change that. And we had to do some amendments at the local level to reflect that. But it, there’s some times, um, what I’ve learned, uh, in, in, as a council member now is that at times, policies are not reflected on what the reality is. And I think the federal government, even, uh, the formula that HUD, has for affordable housing or for our section eight vouchers, they’ve been changing them a little bit, but it’s got to change even more to really assist those that are needing the help. So are we doing enough? No, we’re not. Um, but are, are we doing, are, are, are we making, uh, a dent on the issue? Yeah, we are. But because... So this is a catch-22 at the same time because, but, so we are placing people that are currently unsheltered in a better situation, but at the same time, we’re also having residents that are, that have shelter, that have a home losing their home because of the cost of living in San Diego. So as we’re placing people, other people are coming in. So it’s, uh, we’re constantly trying to catch up to the situation. Um, I think there’s, there’s gotta be a better approach in terms of addressing the current issue and prevention because the prevention side of things has very little support.
Q: With a trillion dollar budget deficit and domestic discretionary spending at its all time low, it hasn’t been this low since, like, the 1950s, is it realistic to think that the federal government will start giving a lot more money to local governments to help with homelessness?
A: There are things that the federal government can do. I mean, Trump introduced some taxes, uh, some, uh, and that could, that was really supposed to be helping the economy. Um, and uh, it really hasn’t proven to, to do that. So we need to reevaluate, um, who’s getting tax credits and who isn’t. Um, I do believe that we can still go for the folks that are a little bit more wealthy than those that are barely living paycheck to paycheck in terms of who’s getting the tax that we can bring more money to the federal government if the taxation breaks are being done correctly. Um, I think that’s an opportunity. Is that going to bring more money? It will be. Is it enough? Probably not, but it will be more than what we’re getting now. And also, I mean, I’ve learned as, uh, the only candidate that has, um, managed, uh, a budget, uh, a governmental budget, I’ve learned that budgeting is based on priorities and, just like the local, the federal government is the same thing, you set priorities.
Q: But the federal government, 70% of the budget is entitlements and the military and interest on the debt. So it’s not, it’s not really akin. You can’t change the priorities of a strong military, paying social security, paying Medicare. I mean, that’s what George Bush tried to do and and he got nowhere with it on the entitlements. So I’m not sure if there’s an analogy between a city which has resources to attack problems and our federal government where the budget’s all wrapped up with commitments that have been made for decades.
A: But there are some abilities. I mean, if we’re getting tax credits to the top 1%, um, that... If that structure changes, that brings more money. Right. And I think that should be a conversation.
Q: California famously got to empty its mental institutions. Uh, and now there’s a call to revisit that sort of, uh, sort of process. Would, would you see that as a, as a solution to take the, maybe the top 10% of the homeless off the street, the ones that are completely incapable of looking out for their own best interests?
A: Oh, most definitely. I think that was one of the biggest mistakes that we have done as a, as a government, uh, I think it needs to be brought back. It’s an important, uh, source of support and we need it. So it makes sense. And I mean, we’re seeing a lot of people that, um, need the support and, uh, we don’t have enough, uh, resources. So California should be bringing that back. I mean, they actually been talking about that at the local level. I mean, the... why aren’t we, why aren’t we trying to work with our state delegation to bring it back? Um, that should be a conversation and we should bring it back.
Q: The ACLU strongly objected to a law that allows San Diego County to have conservatorships for the most serious mentally ill homelessness. So there’s, that’s the other side of the coin from what Andrew’s talking about. When we entered when we emptied the, you know, the mental hospitals ,we also provided people with more freedom. And that was the, the rationale was that some of these people were being held who shouldn’t be held. So it seems to be like society’s going to have kind of a tough choice there. Do we err on the side of freedom or do we err on the side of getting those people out of our faces?
A: Well, I think, uh, I, I would want to bring... I don’t know who was part of the conversation when, uh, there was a decision that the state made. Right? But for me, it’s okay, you need to bring everybody together and there should be, ok, how do we do it? What, what does that look like?
Q: Eight 5150s in one year. If someone gets eight 5150s in on year, local authorities, whether it be police or health officials can go to a court and say, can we, can we take this person against their will off the street? So that, that’s the trigger, the eight 5150s.
A: Yeah.
“My biggest accomplishment is really creating a ... real conversation, not only just for the city of San Diego, but actually a regional conversation around transit.”
— Georgette Gómez
Q: Does that seem reasonable?
A: Does it seem reasonable? I mean, if it makes sense. Yeah. But I do know that, I mean, we have people in the streets. I mean, we walk here downtown and you’re seeing it. Right. And what do you do? You need to provide, you need to provide the proper outreach to place them where they need to be placed. And, uh, I do think that there’s a lot of, in the structure of addressing our unsheltered population there, there are things that we can do differently. Um, in terms of mental health? Yes. More housing that has permanent supportive with wrap around, um, resources? We need that. Um, whomever. I mean, I’ve been a critic and I think HUD [U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development] came down to San Diego and they saw how we were doing outreach. And the fact of the matter is that they have said the way that city of San Diego street outreach needs to be improved. It shouldn’t be an officer because there’s the interaction, right? If an officer comes and tells you, ‘Hey, would you like to be, do you need resources or do you...’ There’s already a negative reaction, right? So we at the local level need to restructure that as well, but, and it’s been flagged that that’s not the best approach. So there’s, there’s not a one solution, there’s not a one answer, but there’s multiple, um, aspects of trying to resolve this whole issue. And I’m also going to go back to the prevention side of things. Um, prevention is really critical because we have people that are working that are not making enough money that ended up losing their homes. So we could prevent the increase if we are also targeting those folks as well. And right now we do very little.
Q: Can I, can I ask a question, Georgette? Maybe uh, it’s right on the nose of the current race. But like, so that whole idea, you know, the hot team is part of the police department. Why... What is... Is there anything going on to, to do all that? Like, yeah, to get those guys out of the police department. We need to put people out there to help and get this whole issue under control. [Cross talk].
A: Yeah. Um, the conversation of restructuring and having a different, um, outreach, um, program is being discussed, um, as we speak. I’ll give you a perfect example. PATH actually has a, uh, a great example in how to do it right. And, and I know because we were able to get them some funding to do outreach in the Mid-City area, both in North park and in City Heights. Um, so what they do is, uh, there is a social worker that actually does outreach, but he only sticks around with like the same population. Let’s say that he made contact with, um, 20 people, right? So he’s constantly going to that same person over and over and over again until they’re ready. And as a community organizer, that’s what you do. You constantly go talk to the person over and over and over. When they’re ready, they get activated, right? So this person does that. They’re building a relationship, understanding the conditions of this person for a while. There’s the trust building and then they’re able to get them the service that they need based on that trust that they’ve been able to do. Right? I don’t remember the numbers right now, but that program alone, which is a very small program, they’ve been successful in relocating people where they need to be placed. So I think that’s a perfect example. Can we do it at a greater scale? We could, but once again, we need to reshuffle the money and really think about doing something like that. So that’s being discussed right now.
Q: What do you see as your biggest accomplishment on the council that would translate into showing a voter that you could be, um, uh, you know, make changes in Congress?
A: Yeah, I would say my biggest accomplishment is really creating a strong, a real, a real conversation, not only just for the city of San Diego, but actually a regional conversation around transit, uh, through being the chair of MTS. Um, I’m no longer the chair, obviously, but I think that that work that it took and that work was really intentionally created in how we were able to do that. I mean, it’s still going on and I’m not saying that it’s done, but the fact of the matter is that I was able to create a partnership with the chamber of commerce. I was able to create a partnership with our education institution, with big employers from the tourism industry, the hotel hospitality side of things, labor, uh folks that are in the community as community organizers, community organizations that are based. So it’s been taking us quite a while and that’s been very intentional because we’ve been wanting to create a understanding of why, how transit could work in our region, but also more importantly, how it, it’s linked to economic prosperity. It’s linked to reducing climate, um, impacts greenhouse gases. It’s linked to addressing, uh, poverty by linking people to better jobs in a more efficient way. So there’s been the, uh, piece for everybody and for the employers. Uh, some of the people that are dependent on transit, those are the people that they’re employing, so if they, if we can create a better, and a faster and more efficient way for their employees to get to work, they like that. So we’ve been able to really link the importance of transit to all the different sectors. Even the military. We’re talking to the military about the importance of that. Uh, Coronado would love to see better... the flow of traffic on the Coronado Bridge to be able to improve the circulation. So they will love to see some sort of transit from that perspective. So now there’s a real buy-in. What that looks like and how we make it happen is the conversation to be had. Right? Um, but I think that’s, that’s something critical for our region.
Q: But that’s buying from local officials. It’s not a buy in from the public. We had a story over the summer that showed transit was down in 17 of the 20 largest cities in America...
A: That’s not true. Actually for MTS, transit has been increasing. So and that is, we have proven data that actually in San Diego our transit, at least for MTS, transit has been increasing and that in that, and not in all routes, but it’s been targeted in certain routes and those routes that we actually put in money to make it more efficient, that’s where those improvements have come from.
Q: But the fact that the climate action plan famously predicts that 18% of people will use bicycles, to commute in large parts of San Diego, and anticipates it more than half the people will get to work by transit. We’re not New York City, we’re not a compact region where there’s the type of places where you can conveniently go from one place to the other. So I just remember what this guy, Wendell Cox, this professor said, he said... He helped plan the San Diego shuttle and he helped, he was on the Los Angeles County Transportation Commission. He said, ‘We’re not the East Coast.’ Until we realize that we’re going to propose policies that aren’t likely to succeed. Do you think mass transit has a future in a spaced out county?
A: I think transit has a space in San Diego and I don’t think we have done our due diligence on transit. And uh, the question becomes as well, what do we do in these transit-oriented areas? I mean, the whole conversation about addressing our housing crisis is all about TOD (transit-oriented development) areas. So in order for us to maximize TOD areas, and in fact Scott Peters has introduced tying some federal money to TOD if the, if the locals are doing the right thing on transit-oriented development areas, they’re densifying them, there could be some federal funding for the locals if they do that. Right? That’s a good thing. So are we doing that right now? We’re not maximizing our transit areas the way that we should. If we were to do that, we are creating a more densified urban environment. So we need to do both. We need to densify our urban development or urban areas. But while we do that as well, we cannot ignore, nor should we, kick down the road a transit yet again. We must do it now in order for it to work. So I’m a believer in it and I think if done correctly it would work.
Q: [Cross talk] Do you believe that 18% of the people in... where is it, Sorrento? The area West of Mira Mesa. That it’s predicted that 18% of commuters will use bikes. I just, I just, I just wish that there wes some, you know... What does that... Where, anywhere in the world, does that happen outside of the third world countries where that many people use bikes?
A: Well, I, I do, I, I don’t know what the right percentages, but I do know that our infrastructure and our streets are not designed for such a thing. So should we not do it because the demand is not there? Who’s to say that if we were to create and design our streets properly, that our complete streets, that the demand wouldn’t be there? Right? So to say, ‘Are we going to?’ I don’t know. But should we try? Yes, we should. Will it work? Possibly it could. Let’s say that we have 20%. But if we don’t try, we’re never going to know. We need to do something because our climate is warming up.
Q: Yeah. What you’re saying about transit is interesting to me. So like I just went back to look at that last story we ran. So overall, San Diego was down 6%. But what you’re saying is, yeah, but if you look more carefully, you’ll see down, I guess more than 6% in some areas, but up in other areas.
A: There’s some routes. Mmm-hmm.
Q: So maybe that suggests like, we don’t our transit focused, like there’s certain areas we ought to be really all in on.
A: Correct.
Q: And maybe rethink wherever it’s going down.
A: Correct. Yes.
Q: What does that look like?
A: So, so...
Q: I guess that’s what you’re trying to...
A: Yeah. So basically, when was it, um, it was my first year in 2017. The MTS decided to target some... We did this — it was before my time — uh, the agency brought in a consultant to analyze our entire system, analyze, ok. If we were to spend $2 million — which actually we ended up spending $2 million — and target, certain routes, improve them, make them go more efficient, faster, right? There’s, instead of 15 minutes, there’s seven minute flow. Um, and we’re about to do that. Actually today, we just approved... At MTS, we just approved a pilot to invest on the blue line, which happens to be our most popular line in the whole system. That moves... Actually it’s a line that pays for itself.
Q: Right.
A: Um, we’re about to invest more money to make it go from 15 minutes to seven minutes and then on the weekends from 30 minutes to 15 minutes. We’re going to do a year pilot to see if that brings more people.
Q: The’s the line from the border, right?
A: Correct.
Q: Yeah, that line does [cross talk].
A: Right. Oh, hat one is great.
Q: Yeah.
A: So anywho, in 2017, the board decided to spend $20 million, no, sorry, $2 million and target certain high dense routes. The outcome of that has been that, because we did that, the ridership has increased on those routes. What does that say? That says a couple of things. One is when we invest and make a system more efficient, people want to ride it more. Right? But then...
Q: But it also says when you invest where there is demand, it’ll work great.
A: Exactly. But then there’s that, because that was based on studies basically it’s like where’s the demand? And if we were to do a little bit more, would it increase?
Q: Mhmm.
A: Then yes. The data has shown that, yes. So now part of the conversation that we’re having at MTS and at SANDAG is that. It’s understanding if the peak flow on traffic in the mornings is coming from South Bay going up North, if we were to invest and improved transit, which in some areas transit is missing, would it remove some vehicles from the, from the freeway? Um, the answers possibly could be, yes. Right? So that’s the vision that is being developed as we speak.
Q: One of the big concerns about transit-oriented development for people who already live here is the notion that this development doesn’t require any parking, and in some cases actually takes away existing parking...
A: Yeah.
Q: ... the transit centers themselves. How are you going to convince or how, how can we convince the public or uh... that this transition from everybody owning a car to this select group of people not having a place to put their vehicles is the right way to go?
A: Yeah. So, A) there’s not a single project that we have approved since we passed that zero requirements, uh, that does not have parking. Um, so it’s not like the developers are coming in and saying, ‘We want, we want to develop something that has zero parking.’ That’s not the case. So I... And I don’t think that’s going to happen anytime soon and the reason being is because this goes back to — we can’t do one without the other. Transit... and I’ve been, before becoming an elected and now that I’m an elected and sit on both of the boards on MTS and that SANDAG, we must do better for transit. In order for us to densify our communities and address our housing crisis, we need to do both at the same time. We need to be permitting projects that are the right projects in the right area, but at the same time for them to reduce costs — which, they kept saying that parking is a huge dollar for them — So for that to come down then, if the idea is that you’re developing high dense development around transit, that people are going to choose, the people are going to naturally just utilize it, right? Well, if the system is not working and it’s not going where they need to go, then that’s not going to happen. The residents are still going to come in with cars and the question then is where are they parking? Right? So they’re going to go outside and park in neighborhoods, right. Then that’s why we get the pushback from residents saying, ‘No, we don’t want this type of project because this is what the reality would be.’ Right? I get that and so that’s why I’ve been a strong supporter of both things occurring at the same time, we cannot ignore one or the other. It does not work. It will not work. Civita. Perfect project, right? It was supposed to be, it is, a very dense project and the idea that it was right next to the trolley.
“In order for us to densify our communities and address our housing crisis, we need to do both at the same time.”
— Georgette Gómez
So part of the outreach that I created for MTS for Elevate SD, um, we went and spoke to them, ‘Hey, How’s it working? Are people taking transit? Do you have less parking requirements?’ Guess what? It isn’t. It isn’t working. Why is it not working? Well, the trolley that we have next to them, is not going where the residents are going, right? So they’re still driving. They even had a free shuttle to move people from their units to the trolley free. Right? It’s like, you don’t have to walk. And the walking’s not that far, but it’s like, they were trying to make it even more, more accessible for the residents. Right.? People weren’t using it. The numbers were pretty low. So then the question that I ask is, ok, we need a better understanding of where people are going to ensure that the system is working. Because just by assuming that you’re developing a high dense project next to transit, that naturally is just magically going to work, that’s a perfect example, that the answer’s no. Because transit is not going... We don’t have a system that works right now. And I am a strong believer that the conversation that I’ve said, that I, I am proud of this conversation. And now we’re starting to look at that because we’re actually talking to developers. We’re actually talking to employers and getting a better understanding of where are the people that you employee, where are they coming from? Right? Because they’re coming from somewhere and if we don’t have that understanding and we’re just continuing to develop something that is based on assumptions without really talking to the impacted community, then we’re developing a system that won’t work and I’m trying to change that. And I’ve been able, and been successful in doing that because now we have every, not everybody, but most people at the table in terms of employers, in terms of developers that our health care providers, military, the education institution, these are people that actually have a legitimate impact to this conversation. They have not been asked in the past and we’re doing that and they think we’re going to have a good outcome of that.
Q: What do you see as the biggest threat to America?
A: At this moment in time?
Q: Correct.
A: I’m going to say it’s the president. We have a president that obviously, there’s an investigation right now. We have impeachment, right? But we have a president that has misused his power as an elected and that’s really unfortunate. It’s really unfortunate because he was elected by the people, right? People elected him. This is not coming from me being a Democrat. It’s just, it’s coming from... As an elected, you have responsibilities. You take an oath and whether you like it or not, you’re taking in the oath. And you’re elected not to serve yourself. It’s about the greater good. It’s about the nation. It’s about our communities. And we have a president that there’s enough evidence that he’s misused his power for personal gain.
Q: So you would vote to impeach him?
A: Yeah.
Q: What’s the biggest threat apart from the president?
A: Our climate crisis. I truly do believe that we have a climate crisis and that we need to do things differently. We cannot continue governing in the way that we’ve done in the past. In fact, I believe that every policy that is adopted, adopted at every single level of government must have the climate part of that adoption. In terms of, if we are talking about housing, if we’re talking about education, if we’re talking about development for business. What does that mean for our climate? If we are talking about the creation of energy or fuel, um, fossil fuel, what does that mean? We need to do things differently because, or else we won’t have a place to call home. So we can talk about every issue in the world. But if we don’t have a home, then what’s the point?
Q: So you’re for the Green New Deal?
A: I am. I am for the, yeah. But I do believe that part of that, regardless of what we’re calling it, there must be also a discussion about the transition of workers. We need to be talking about that because that too can become a crisis. If we’re creating a new way of operating as a nation, um, and if we are transitioning workers from what they were doing to nothing, that’s going to create even the bigger impact of having people unemployed. And that’s really significant. So the whole conversation of trying to do things differently, we should, there needs to be also conversation of how do you transition, right? You can’t go from this to all the way over here. You need to create a plan and how do you get over here? Right? And the workers are part of that conversation.
Q: Yeah. The Washington Post said that the strongest criticism of the Green New Deal didn’t come from Republicans who were gleeful that it had been introduced, but from unions...
A: Mhmm.
Q: ...who fear the worst for a forced change in how our economy works. So that’s not a small issue. That’s a gigantic issue. I’m not sure how AOC ever could get this through with that issue.
A: Well, I think that that issue is being talked about more. I do think that when the, the concept was introduced, it left, uh, workers out of it. And I would say that it didn’t have a strong... I mean, I come from the environmental justice world of things. It didn’t have a strong component to environmental justice. In the whole conversation about climate crisis, there has been a big push from ej organizations that ej should be at the center of the solution because we do have communities that have been impacted the most for many years and they’re going to continue if they’re not at the center of how this new way of living is. And I am a true believer of that. So I know that those conversations have been, uh, have been had and it’s been somewhat amended a little bit. Um, but there’s still some work to be done.
Q: On single family rentals, vacation rentals. I’ve kind of changed my mind over the last two years. And two years ago when the city council back down from a fight we wrote an editorial that says it’s reasonable to do, that it had been outspent by millions of dollars, but it just seems like at some point you’re going to have to take on the Boogeyman.
A: I would agree.
Q: So is there going to have to be a vote at some point? You’re going to have to take, try to fight off Airbnb’s millions. And it just seems like in retrospect, what seemed the prudent thing to do, just kicked the can down the road. So how do we get to effective regulations of vacation rentals?
A: Well, I, I’m going to use my example that I did on the regulation that I was managing, which was the inclusionary housing. Um, I, I didn’t give up. I could have just introduced it. It got vetoed, walked away. I didn’t do that. Right. I brought the folks that were opposing it to the table again and work through the issues. So it brought something different. I think that should have been the approach of the person leading that issue. And I would agree with you. I think now that I think about it, and thinking back on our decision to rescind, I would have voted differently. Knowing that fact that we haven’t done anything since I would’ve defended our policy and would have taken it to the voters. Um, I’m hoping that that issue comes sooner rather than later because we are losing, um, housing to vacation rentals and that’s, that’s a significant issue.
Q: But you regret that vote?
A: Do I regret that vote? No, I don’t regret it. Um, I’m hoping that the... I’m hoping that we bring back another update to it and I’m hoping that it’s supported by everybody. B ut if it isn’t and somebody’s forcing us to... If there’s a referenda like the other one occurred, right, I would, I would take the chance and take it to the voters. That’s what I’ve learned from that.
Q: Yeah. Because the Airbnb folks will never accept a ban on investing.
Q: Of course. And yet, unless you have a ban on investors, it’s not really that much of a help to relieve...
A: But they were proposing some things. Um, I know that they were. They weren’t saying don’t move anything. Um, there could have been a better facilitation of that conversation by the person who was leading that conversation.
Q: Scooters. Wonderful or woeful?
A: I have been a scooter supporter. I think that it is a, uh, a form of movement and yes, it’s fun, but it also moves people from point A to point B. I have utilized them myself. Um, I have said — and I will continue to say this — is we need the proper infrastructure for them. Now go back to the, the infrastructure on biking. The fact that they’re riding on the sidewalks is not because that’s what they want to do, but because the streets are not safe. So we can regulate all we want, but if we don’t have the proper infrastructure, people are still going to be doing things that are not supposed to occur, such as ride on the sidewalks. Right? So we as electeds need to do the proper thing. If we are proposing something and we’re introducing something new, we need to have the proper structure for it to work. The mayor decided to, um, allow scooters to be, to, to operate in our city. Uh, we need to do better to ensure that we have that infrastructure for them. And that means our streets need to, need to accommodate, um, scooters as well as bikers.
Q: I talked to Congressmen (Scott) Peters and (Mike) Levin today, and they both gave Trump some credit on the USMC deal for including the $300 million that might go to help the Tijuana River. So we’ve got (House Speaker) Nancy Pelosi saying this, we’ve got (Gov. Gavin) Newsom this, we’ve got these Congressmen saying this, that you have to deal with Trump. As terrible as he may seem.
A: Mhmm.
Q: So what, what’s your, are you pragmatic about this?
A: Oh, most definitely. No. Yeah. Most, I mean, I am a progressive, but I am a pragmatic elected. I mean, I, I, I worked on inclusionary. Did I want I want it to be stronger? Yes. But it just wasn’t working. Right? So for me, um, I need to ensure that the residents that are facing currently the issues — from better jobs to housing — that those issues are being addressed. This is not about me and about my... how I see things at times. It’s about ensuring that I’m able to move the policies that will assist a better living condition for, for San Diegans. That’s how I see my role. Um, would I work if, uh, when, when, when I do win I got to D.C., if Trump is there, am I going to work with him? Yes, I am. I’m not... it would be irresponsible for me to say no. It would be. Um, and I would work with any Republican as well, just because for me it’s about moving policies that will create a better condition for residents throughout the nation.
Q: Where are you on border security then? Republicans want to... and Trump want to build a wall? You’ve obviously led the council’s...
A: Resolution?
Q: ...resolution on that front.
A: I don’t think we need a wall that addresses security. Um, I mean our region has been working extremely hard in developing the relationship with Mexico and that is critical. They are our neighbors. They are our allies. Right? A wall does not reflect friendship. It’s not a good way to foster relationships.
Q: But we’ve already... we’ve always had a wall, or at least for the last 20-some years...
A: Yes. So do we need a bigger wall? Do we need a major, another one?
Q: So how would you work with the president or the Republicans on that issue? Would you offer something up to get something that you know, would help, uh, the immigration situation in exchange?
A: I don’t, I don’t, I don’t think this is about negotiating. This is about really creating the real reality of what’s at the border. Right? I think there’s been a narrative, national narrative that has been created by someone that is not from the border, that is creating this, ‘Oh my God it’s so unsafe.’’ There’s all these criminals crossing the border every single day.’ That’s not, that’s not what we have here. That’s, that’s not a reality, right? So my responsibility as someone that comes from the border, someone that comes from immigrant parents, is to try to show what the reality is. Even I would think even bring some of my colleagues to the border. Let me show you what the border really is about...
Q: But the border wall...
A: ...so there’s a better, there’s a better understanding of what that is. And then, once that happens, let’s have a conversation.
Q: But the wall is really a symptom of the larger concern that millions and millions of people have, that America is going to face something like what Europe faced from 2011 to 2018 when hundreds of thousands of people showed up. And so that can be framed as racist fear of the other or that can just be framed as a nation that’s worried about its health. And we’ve got polls now that show American support, uh, immigration of 250,000 a year. And we average a million a year. So you’ve got broad American support for a crackdown on immigration. And Trump figured this out and capitalized on it. So this is the issue that I think Democrats need to address. It’s Americans fearful of being transformed rapidly.
A: Well, it’s the fear. It’s the fear of the unknown, right? And we do have a narrative that is, it’s, um, taking advantage of that fear. Right. And what is the fear coming from? I mean, let me give you a perfect example as to my, my family’s story. Um, my parents left their hometown, their family, their language, their custom. They left not because they wanted to, but because my dad as a farmer, farming was killed because of, um, some bad policies that were occurring in terms of farming. It killed farming in Mexico. And that, what I mean by bad policies is trade, uh, that really took over and it killed the industry of farming, at least in my town. What, what was the outcome of that then? Their, their jobs, their livelihood was no longer there. They have a family to take care of. So what do they do? They, they were forced to come over here, right? So we must as trade deals are being, uh, discussed. We need to acknowledge that if we don’t put better conditions to the other end of the spectrum, then at times those trade deals are actually creating migration because the people’s quality of life or their livelihood is being threatened. So that has to be part of the conversation as well. It’s not about just a border and what we do at the border. It’s okay, we are imposing trade. That at times is creating migration. It’s forcing people out. That should be part of the conversation. I mean we have a border by Canada. Do we have walls over there? To the extent that we’re being talked about right here in Mexico? I think we need to really look at this differently and I’m not a believer that just by creating a wall that’s going to address security. It isn’t. Because people are still crossing. Even with the wall that we currently have, people are still coming here. So there is a piece of economic, there should be a conversation about economics to this whole conversation.
Q: I didn’t the part of the story... What was it that changed that undermined farming in your parents’ hometown?
A: Farming became more, basically irrelevant,
Q: Because of trade policy?
A: Because of trade and then basically just literally, I mean my town was, was uh, they, they were growing beans. Um, it became cheaper to go to the market to buy beans. So the bean was devalued, right? Corn was devalued, tobacco was devalued and that was intentional to basically create a different market of agriculture.
Q: So who would you like to see take your current position and why?
A: Well, I have supported, uh, Kelvin Barrios. Uh, that’s somebody that has worked with me, that was there since day one. I know his work ethic. He worked with me very closely as a, when I, when I was doing, well, when he was with me he did, he was one of my leads on the work that I was doing on transportation through MTS. He, uh, helped me, uh, get the chairmanship position. Um, he has a great heart for the community and I know he’ll work hard on behalf of District 9.
Q: Is there a current member of Congress that you feel like really represents, kind of,? the kind of congressperson that you will be? Or that you’re really excited to work with?
A: Well, so far, I mean, I’m, I’m starting to get very acquainted with some of the members. Um, I’ve had conversations with, (Rep.) Jimmy Gomez (D-California), and, uh, his background as coming from labor really resonates with me in terms of why he’s a Congressman, why he entered into, into government, actually. Um, there’s, there’s, there’s a, there’s a connection to people, uh, which I really appreciate. Um, so that’s somebody that I, that I’m looking forward and developing a better relationship and really seeing how he operates as a, as a Congressman. Um, the other one is, let me think. Who are the people... I truly do like, um, (Rep.) Pete Aguilar (D-California) as well. Um, also having conversations with him. It’s just our backgrounds as to why they’re in government really resonates with me. Um, in terms of their motivation.
Q: So running for a federal position is a little trickier than running in a, in a community election like ours. Uh, what’s your path to victory? How are you getting it out? How do you get the word out?
A: Yeah. So, um, yeah, most definitely. It’s, I mean it’s a bigger territory. Um, you need more money. Uh, so the way that we are going about it is so far we have built a strong coalition that is made up in terms of supporting my, my candidacy for Congress. I have gotten, uh, several congressional members in support of my candidacy, (Rep.) Juan Vargas (D-California), Rep. Tony Cárdenas (D-California). Um, the whole, the list is escaping but have various others that are supporting me. I’ve been able to get the BOLD PAC, which is the Hispanic PAC from D.C. The, the Latino members have a pack. Uh, they have officially supported me as well as Equality PAC as well. So there’s a lot of support from D.C. In terms of current electeds. I have practically our entire delegation that is representing us here at the state from state (Sen.) Toni Atkins. (Assemblyman) Todd Gloria, (Assemblywoman) Lorena Gonzalez, uh, (Assemblywoman) Shirley Weber’s endorsement as well. (Assemblywoman) Tasha (Horvath). Um, I have very various mayors, specifically the mayor from Chula Vista, which is part of the 53rd. The mayor from La Mesa as well has been supporting me. I have labor support. Um, I have the California Democratic Party’s support. So I have a strong support foundation. And my biggest strength is my connection to the community. I started as a community organizer for Environmental Health Coalition in Chula Vista. So I’ve been working in this community for a very, very long time, in Chula Vista. And, uh, I graduated from San Diego State, uh, which is also part of the 53rd. So I have ties to that area even before becoming an elected. And the fact is that now I represent part of the district, not the entire district, but part of my current district overlaps with the 53rd. I have good relationships with my constituents. So aside from the electeds, the (Democratic) Party, labor endorsing me, I also have a strong community rooted, um, relationship. And, uh, our path to victory is that. It’s bringing the entire spectrum of what it takes to win, which is you have the Democratic Party, which, this is a Democratic district. So I’m the only candidate that has the official endorsement of the California Democratic Party. That’s pretty significant. I have labor. This is a working class district, a huge labor membership district. They’re going to be pretty active in my campaign. I have the grassroots folks that are ready to hit the ground and start talking to voters. In fact, we’ve already started. And in terms of the money, the money’s coming in as well. So I have the right story for this. I have the right connections for this district. I have the leadership to prove as an elected how I’ve engaged in making decisions and moving solutions forward to benefit people’s quality of life. I’m the only elected that has that experience, the only candidate that has that experience. Um, so it’s about making sure that that narrative, my story gets out to the voters and we’re going to do it the way that I did it the first time but at a bigger scale, which is talking to more voters. There’s different cities in the region. Um, obviously. So there’s, uh, for example, Assemblymember Shirley Weber, practically her entire district overlaps with the 53rd. She’s, she’s super supportive of my campaign, actively supportive, uh, Juan Vargas, congressmen who is also is very active in the campaign as well. I have Lorena Gonzalez. Um, so a lot of the folks that are supporting me, they’re not just supporting me by name. They’re actually engaged in the campaign.
Q: That’s a pretty good answer. Um, um, how about foreign policy though? How do you show voters that you’re well versed in that? Obviously, you know, the border, you know, San Diego and that issue, but there’s a lot of hot spots, uh, around the world right now. Are you up to speed on those and how do you, especially when one of your opponents, Sara Jacobs has kind of that going for her, her foreign policy expertise.
A: Yeah, I’m not, I mean, I’m not going to claim that I’m, that I know everything in terms of what’s going on in the foreign policy of things. I’m, I’m tracking some of it. Um, I’m, I’m trying to, I’ve been focusing a lot at the local and obviously the binational relationship, right? But at the same time, even when they first got elected to city council, I mean it’s different when you’re an advocate and then you enter, it’s a different world, right? I’ve proven that I can learn and lead. So for me it’s about really understanding and I do believe that, um, that the nation is leaving communities behind. And I, I, one of the things that I really want to do is really fight for our region to get more resources, to start addressing education, to not just put it at the, the state’s responsible for education. I do believe that the federal government is also responsible and we should be doing more of that, right? There are things, the housing crisis. Things that we can currently do, right? Foreign policy comes very little. I’m not saying that it’s not important, but it’s something that I can, once, once I’m there, I will do my work to ensure that I understand everything that I’m responsible for, to understand it and, and engage in the responsible way. I’ve, I’ve proven that I can do that. Um, so it’s not, it’s not a matter of do I know it, but it’s a matter of I will know it. I need to get there to know it.
Q: One of the big domestic issues is health care. What are your thoughts on Medicare for All?
A: I support Medicare For All. Um, but I also do believe that we can’t go from where we are now to what’s being proposed. Once again, I do believe that we need to defend ACA and we need to expand it in the reason being is because right now there are residents not only just here but and throughout that don’t have insurance and they cannot wait for perfection, for, for care. So we need to ensure that we are making sure that everybody is covered and when they’re covered, that it’s accessible because just coverage does not be that you have care. Right? So it needs to be more accessible as well, in terms of cost.
“I have the right connections for this district. I have the leadership to prove as an elected how I’ve engaged in making decisions and moving solutions forward to benefit people’s quality of life.”
— Georgette Gómez
Q: So just to clarify, are you for Medicare for All?
A: Yes.
Q: Or Medicare for all who want it?
A: No Medicare for All. But I also do believe that we need to scale up to that.
Q: Ok.
A: Yeah.
Q: How about the abolishment of private insurance issue, which seems to kind of hurt Elizabeth Warren’s campaign, when she came out with a plan on how to pay for all that stuff.
A: How do we pay for it?
Q: Yeah. Well, so how do you pay for it? And then where, in terms of kind of, a follow up to Andrew’s question, private insurance, do you get to keep that? Does that phase out? Is it a, is it neutralized?
A: Well, that’s the conversation. That’s the conversation that, um, that should be had. Right? I think, uh, for me, one of the things that I’m picking up in terms of this whole conversation, I mean, I’ve spoken with the doctors. Um, I spoken with nurses. I’ve spoken with folks that are in the uh, industry of the bio, the bio industry and uh, they all want to be at the table to talk about coverage. They want to be at the table to talk about cost as well. And uh, based on what I’m picking up is that the conversation is being had singular. They’re... not everybody is being brought to the table and I think it’s irresponsible for us to ignore that because then it’s not gonna work. Um, so for me, my, my approach would be including everybody that has a stake on this whole conversation to ensure that we’re building something that will lead to a solution that will get people covered, that is being done in a costly way as well. Um, I mean, I, I didn’t have insurance my entire life, so I know what that meant. You know, my, my, my mother was taking me to Tijuana for care. Right? And it was not an easy thing to do. So at times we would wait, right. And that’s, that’s only because I was able to cross. But there are family members that are not sometimes or they can’t afford to just go and take their child or themselves because they can’t afford time off from work. So there is a cost conversation that needs to occur here. So for me, my approach would be, okay, who are the people that have the biggest stake at this conversation from doctors, nurses, insurance, and even the biotech industry that is creating the medicine as we speak. Right. And they, there needs to be a bigger conversation.
Q: Are you supporting a presidential candidate? As of now?
A: No, I’m not. I’m focused on my campaign. I do know that it’s important, but at the, I mean for me it’s, it’s, it’s all about my campaign.
Q: Any other questions? Thanks for coming in, council president. Give us your close, why voters should pick you.
“For me it’s about addressing people’s quality of life and also more importantly, I am going to fight extremely hard to ensure that we’re bringing more money to San Diego to address all these issues.”
— Georgette Gómez
A: Well, thank you once again for this very robust conversation. No, I, I, um, for me, becoming the next congressional representative for 53rd is about the people. It’s about making sure that the U.S. government is doing the right thing for our neighborhoods, it’s about addressing the housing crisis, it’s about addressing our climate crisis. Uh, poverty is a big issue and we need to address that. We need to create better jobs and make sure that as we’re creating those better jobs that they’re getting, they’re accessible to the people that need them the most. Um, so for me it’s about addressing people’s quality of life and also more importantly, I am going to fight extremely hard to ensure that we’re bringing more money to San Diego to address all these issues. Um, now that I have experience in local government and I understand that, uh, where the gaps are on these issues that we’re trying to address at the local level. And the federal government has responsibility to help local agencies, for doing the right thing. I mean, the city of San Diego has a climate action plan that is pretty bold and, uh, there’s only so much we can do what the local level. We need support from the federal government, addressing our housing crisis, our unsheltered population. The federal government has to step up to do more for the local cities. So I know what it takes to address some of these issues. I know what it takes to work with people that sometimes have a different perspective and a different view, possibly completely different. But I’m able to work with them. I’m able to understand and create a common uh, weave out the commonality and really move forward with that in a solution-based. I’ve done it at the local level and I can take that experience at the federal level. So this is why I’m running to ensure that San Diego is in the better place, that we’re bringing more support from the federal government, and more importantly, that we’re also lifting people’s quality of life. And, uh, would be very proud to, to be the next congressional representative for the 53rd.
Get Weekend Opinion on Sundays and Reader Opinion on Mondays
Editorials, commentary and more delivered Sunday morning, and Reader Reaction on Mondays.
You may occasionally receive promotional content from the San Diego Union-Tribune.