Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
I stopped doing private sector earmarks back in ‘06 or ‘07. In ‘08 I finished doing
even government earmarks. And even in that year, I required that the cities or the county
give me a public vote of what they wanted and then I would forward them. But even then,
the process simply didn’t have the clarity that we’d like to have. And I’m continuing
to reform the federal executive branch’s earmark system so I felt it best to be out
of them and I have been for many years.
And do you think that some of that criticism is fair that you’re getting? I’m referring
specifically to the Vista Medical Center Building.
Well, you know, it’s the only time I can imagine where there’s a public disclosure
by the city and by SANDAG of the request. A public disclosure that we’re asking for
money, which by the way has never built the road, never done any of that., and then months
after it’s all public, someone decides to sell a property along that based on a multiple
of earnings, based on its existing tenants, and we buy it. It wasn’t land development,
there’s no big change that would have occurred had the funding occurred. So I think you’re
sort of, you’re talking about something that could have, would have, maybe have happened,
but in fact didn’t. And more importantly, once something is public, the value of any
improvement is priced into the selling price. So do I think it’s a good example? No I
think it’s a terrible example. At the same time, though, it’s a good example of why
there need to be strict rules if they’re going to have member-driven or administration-driven
priorities go to specific entities and I hope to get that on a bi-partisan basis. I’ve
been trying to. One of the reasons I quit taking those earmarks years ago and forwarding
them is that I felt we needed to have a process that was fairer and transparent and we don’t
have that yet.