Communities

Funds sought to digitalize archived articles

Source:  San Diego History Center

February 12, 2025 (Borrego Springs) - The San Diego History Center and Desert Media Holdings Inc, owner of the Borrego Sun newspaper, have reached an agreement forthe transfer of the Borrego Sun archive ensuring the preservation of the San Diego County community’s history for future generations.

The Borrego Sun, established in 1949, remains in publication today and is available through subscriptions and purchase throughout the Borrego Springs community. The archive being transferred to the History Center consists of thousands of files including pictures, articles, maps and clippings that document the history of the community over the past 70 years.

By Alex Schorr

Photo,Left to Right: Dr. Gary Woods (President, Area 3 Trustee), Robert Shield (Vice President, Area 4 Trustee), Scott Eckert (Clerk, Area 2 Trustee), Jim Kelly (Member, Area 5 Trustee), and Chris Fite (Member, Area 1 Trustee).

February 9, 2025 (El Cajon) – Teachers, parents, and community members leveled sharp criticism of the Grossmont Union High School District (GUHSD) board of trustees during a special budget workshop meeting on February 6. Numerous speakers objected to the board’s creation of a costly new chief of staff position and waiving of board policies to do so, after the board majority earlier voted to lay off numerous employees, including many teachers.

The first quarter of the meeting was dedicated to the Governing Board Budget. This involved showing where school funding comes from (sales tax, corporation tax, and personal income tax). California Governor Gavin Newsom developed a state budget while the district simultaneously projectts its own. In May, the Governor’s budget will be reviewed again, while the district budget will be adjusted and adopted sometime in June.

The Governor's proposed budget includes an education budget that invests in core instruction and learning. It also provides continuation for and protection of Proposition 98, which gives mandatory minimum funding for schools while eliminating “one-time funding.” Additionally, one-time funding was illustrated as having an impact on CTE program services, mental health, and chromebooks. 

Photo, right: Deputy Superintendent of Business, Pearl Lizuka, introducing the Education Budget for GUHSD and the necessity of Proposition 98.

A staffer’s presentation at theGUHSD workshop illustrated that the greatest risk to Proposition 98 is declining enrollment. The presentation referenced the Local Funding Control Formula (LCFF), which revolves around the use of a Base Grant per ADA, stating that all English learning programs would be provided a 20% cut in funding. In addition to the GUHSD budget, a number of concerns could impact the state budget,including anxiety over stock market vulnerability, elevated interest rates, delayed tax deadlines, and federal policies centered on harsh immigration enforcement. 

The podium was opened to public comment before the Board voted on agenda item D1, approval of a new job description for Chief of Staff, and D2, which waives board policies that allows them to accomplish D1. 

James Messina, President of Grossmont Education Association (GEA), the district’s teacher’s union,  asked, “What are we doing here?” He listed all laws and policies being broken if the Board voted to approve D1 and D2. He mentioned that the new position, if created or hired at all, is something that the Superintendent should be concerned with, not the Board members. Messina continued, stating that GUHSD used to be the envy of the county and that the board was ruining their reputation.

Additionally, Messina stated his concerns in a letter to GEA: “As GEA President, I would hope GUHSD would want to get the best possible candidate for this position, but it seemed more important to fill this position as soon as possible. This position was not flown in EdJoin for prospective applicants to see, [therefore] no applications to screen. GUHSD did not create a hiring panel for introduction level interviews. Finalists were not sent to the Superintendent for 2nd/3rd interviews. All of these steps were skipped and the Governing Board just appointed an employee for the new position. These actions of the Governing Board remove all transparency, go against past practice, GUHSD Governing Board bylaws, and GUHSD Board policies (BB 9900, BP4311).”

Other speakers included parents, teachers and community members stressing a lack of support and that in spite of this, the Board wants to add a new salaried position,  which the governing board members have appointed all by themselves without going through the process of vetting, interviews, or the proper hiring processes. 

Matthew Norris emphasized an undermining of trust, with Gavin Preston stating that the governing board members manufactured an emergency.  Bonnie Price said the board trustees are degrading the quality of education in her district. It was emphasized that the most important job of the board is to annually assess how to make education better for the students, and that it was not clear how this new Chief of Staff position would do this. 

Speakers from Monte Vista and Granite Hills high schools  illustrated that the Board fired a number of people last year including at least ten teachers, stating that the budget required it. Yet suddenly this year, the Board acquires the money to hire a Chief of Staff who is essentially taking on the role of the fired individuals. 

Multiple speakers accused board members of either sidestepping the legal process or downright ignoring it. These speakers brought attention to the fact that this would unnecessarily cost money and public trust.

Only two board members addressed concerns raised by speakers. 

Trustee Jim Kelly gave this response. “I'm sure everyone’s minds are made up, and speaking as a 32 year board member, I can tell that this position is needed,” he stated.  He indicated that the GUHSD bureaucracy needs to have better communications with the public: “the administration does a really good job at looking after itself, protecting itself, and filtering information that goes into the board,” adding that sometimes the board learns information later that might have resulted in a different decision if known earlier.  “We come for one meeting a month, normally...and we’re flying blind,” he asserted, adding, “I have seen sometimes people come up to me saying they are afraid to talk to board members.”

Trustee Chris Fite said hiring the Chief of Staff in this manner would undermine the public trust.  We don’t need this position,” said Fite,”and this is not the way we should be doing business.”

In the end, Dr. Gary Woods (President, Area 3), Robert Shield (Vice President, Area 4), Jim Kelly (Area 5 Trustee), and Scott Eckert (Clerk, Area 2) voted in favor of the new Chief of Staff Position, with Chris Fite, (Trustee, Area 1) voting no.

East County News Service

February 11, 2025 (Rancho San Diego) – A head-on collision in Rancho San Diego has left two people dead and three others injured. The deadly crash occurred on February 7 around 8:25 p.m.

An El Cajon man, 26, was driving a 2022 BMW M3 eastbound on Willow Glen Drive east of Murfield Drive when for unknown reasons, the vehicle crossed over the solid, double-yellow lines. It struck the front of a BMW 330i traveling westbound.  A Toyota Tacoma also traveling westbound was unable to avoid the other two vehicles and collided into both, causing the Toyota to overturn.

The BMW 330i’s driver and passenger were both pronounced dead at the scene by medical personnel. The driver, 48, and passenger, 32, were both men from El Cajon. 

The driver of the BMW M3 sustained major injuries and was transported to Sharp Memorial Hospital.

The driver of the Toyota, 31, and his passenger, a 30-year-old man, sustained minor injuries.  Both are from El Cajon.

“This is an ongoing investigation; it is unknown at this time if drugs and/or alcohol were a factor in the crash,” says Officer Jasmine Lopez with the California Highway Patrol.

East County News Service

February 11, 2025 (La Mesa) – Two La Mesa residents, ages 79 and 77, have died as the result of a four-car accident that occurred last night around 7:18 p.m. on Interstate 8 east, just east of 70^th Street in La Mesa. They were the driver and passenger in a 2004 Toyota.

According to the California Highway Patrol, the Toyota was traveling at a slow rate of speed or stopped in the #3 lane. It was struck from behind by a 2016 Dodge driven by a San Diego woman, 34, with a 4-year-old passenger. 

A 2017 Kia driven by an El Cajon woman, 63, was unable to avoid the crash and struck the Dodge from behind. Flying debris caused damage to a fourth vehicle, a 2017 Mercedes driven by an El Cajon man,30.

The senior man driving the Toyota was pronounced dead at the scene by medical personnel. His passenger was transported to Sharp Memorial Hospital, where she died of her injuries. 

The driver and passenger of the Dodge were transported to Sharp Grossmont Hospital for precautionary reasons. The driver of the Kia sustained minor injuries. The driver of the Mercedes sustained no injuries.

This is an ongoing investigation; it is unknown at this time if drugs and/or alcohol were a factor in the crash, according to Officer Jasmine Lopez.

Photo:  Councilman Steve Goble is the likely swing vote when the El Cajon City Council reconsiders an amended version of a controversial immigration measure on Feb. 11.

By Miriam Raftery

February 10, 2025 (El Cajon) -  A controversial measure to allow El Cajon Police officers to cooperate with federal immigration authorities is back on tomorrow’s agenda. The newly revised version includes changes from an earlier version that was voted down 3-2  after a five-hour hearing with emotional testimony on both sides. View revised draft.

The immigration matter is scheduled at the end of a 3 p.m. meeting tomorrow. However, there is an earlier 2 p.m. special meeting on unrelated issues. Activists on both sides have been advising the public to arrive early, since seats may fill up for the first meeting with people planning to stay for both meetings.

The original measure was introduced by Mayor Bill Wells and Councilman Phil Ortiz, who voted in favor. Councilmembers Gary Kendrick, Michelle Metschel and Steve Goble voted no, after several attempts at compromise measures failed. The newest reversion includes amended language proposed by Councilmember Goble.

A state law, SB 54, prohibits local police from turning over individuals to federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) unless they have been convicted of certain serious felonies, such as murder or rape.  California’s law was upheld on appeal and the Supreme Court declined to hear the case, allowing the law to stand.  Yet the Trump administration has threatened to prosecute local officials if they don’t cooperate with federal immigration authorities, putting local cities in a difficult situation.

"Federal law prohibits state and local actors from resisting, obstructing, and otherwise failing to comply with lawful immigration-related commands or requests," a Justice Dept. memo states, raising the possibility of charges for harboring immigrants without legal status or for failing to share information with immigration authorities, NPR reports.

The Justice Dept. is setting up a Sanctuary Cities Enforcement Working Group to identify state and local policies or laws that are "inconsistent" with the Trump administration's enforcement efforts, and "where appropriate, to take legal action to challenge such laws."  Whether courts would continue to uphold California’s SB 54, or whether a conservative-leaning Supreme Court might overturn it, is unknown.

El Cajon’s latest revision to its proposed measure now states the city’s intent to “comply with federal immigration law to the legal extent permissible for the sole purpose of removing violent criminals from our community.”. 

But the city’s language leaves room to cooperate on deportation of people merely accused, but not convicted, of crimes.  It notes that  the Trump administration says there are “over 647,000 non-detained individuals living in the United States illegally who have pending charges or have been convicted of or charged with violent crimes, including robbery, assault, sexual assault, homicide, and and human trafficking.”  

That raises serious concerns about the prospect for innocent people to be deported without a trial.  There are many examples of individuals falsely accused of crimes and later proven innocent, such as when DNA tests prove another person committed the crime, or bystander videos emerge to disprove charges.  A prime example occurred in La Mesa in 2020, when a police officer accused a young man at a trolley stop of assaulting the officer. A bystander’s video proved that the assault did not occur; the officer was fired for filing a false report, but his actions triggered a riot and accusations of racial profiling.

ECM spoke with Councilman Steve Goble, the likely swing vote on El Cajon’s immigration issue. He proposed another amendment included in the revised draft. 

“If you want police officers to work for ICE under SB 54 which is not allowed, and then the feds and the state are at such odds with each other, I want indemnification for our officers, in case anybody comes after their credentials because they are licensed by the state,” Goble told ECM.

His amendment states ,”The City will seek assistance from the United States Attorney General’s office to indemnify the City and its employees for any assistance or
cooperation with federal immigration authorities as permitted by law.”  The city also faces potential enforcement actions from the state, however, since Attorney General Rob Bonta has indicated he will hold cities accountable if they violate SB 54.

The Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution states that any powers not given to the federal government are reserved for the states or the people. Goble notes.  California’s SB 54 does not stop the federal authorities from doing their work, he points out, adding that the state doesn’t want to assist in those efforts. (SB 54 does allow cities to turn over undocumented immigrants to ICE if they have been convicted of serious felonies.)

Mayor Wells, who has announced his intent to seek reelection in 2026 and also run for supervisor in 2028, has said his goal is to protect public safety.  On X,  he recently posted, “I’m bringing back a resolution to support our law enforcement officers working with ICE to remove illegal immigrant criminals from our communities. We all want safer neighborhoods, and I will continue fighting to protect our families from those who break our laws and threaten our safety. Law enforcement must have every tool available to uphold the law and keep criminals off our streets.”

Goble states, “What Bill is saying aspirationally is if we know there is a convicted criminal living in El Cajon illegally, we want the option of contacting ICE.” That might include, for example, a parolee who served time for a serious felony but was not handed over to ICE elsewhere. 

However, Goble indicated he has concerns about deporting people who have merely been accused, but not convicted of serious crimes, suggesting he might be open to an amendment limiting ECPD cooperation only to undocumented immigrations who have been convicted in court.

Goble spoke of a San Diego Police officer’s search for an accused serial rapist, who turned out to be in a Border Patrol vehicle, so Border Patrol handed him over to the police instead of deporting him immediately. In Goble’s view, that was the right decision.

“The reason is that it’s better to go through the justice system and be deported as convicted criminal,” Goble explained, noting that if merely deported without a criminal conviction, the suspect could potentially reenter the U.S. again and again.

There is also the potential for the Trump administration to order deportation of any undocumented immigrant, even those living in the U.S. for decades without committing crimes here, since some Trump administration officials including White House Secretary Karoline Leavitt have said they consider everyone who crossed the border illegally to be criminals. Trump, on the campaign trail, frequently spoke of wanting to deport all undocumented immigrants, an estimated 11 million people.Trump has also revoked special protection status for some legal immigrants, including Afghan translators who helped our military.

If a future court were to overturn SB 54, does El Cajon wants its police officers cooperating if the “crime” was merely crossing the border, or overstaying a legal protected status order  later revoked, as in the case of Afghans who helped our military?

The Mayor's immigration measure has sparked heated public debate, wtih over 80 people speaking out at the last Council meeting. Elected officials on both sides are facing serious threats, including death threats against a councilmember who voted against the resolution and a recall effort gearing up against at least one Councilmember who voted for the resolution, ECM has learned.

Latinos en Acción has announced a press conference at noon tomorrow  in front of City Council chambers at 200 Civic Center Way, El Cajon, in opposition to the resolution, the San Diego Union-Tribune reports. A flyer announcing the event states that California law already allows police to transfer violent criminals to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents, and expanding local police cooperation would mostly affect non-violent offenders and could lead to racial profiling.

At an earlier hearing on this issue, Violet Lombera with Latinos en Accion testified that moving to El Cajon from Brawley, she was stopped by police in what she views as “racial profiling.  I don’t want that to happen again...Doing this is really going to separate and divide us. It’s going to attack my community,  Mexican Americans...I’ve been attacked. I’ve been segregated. I’ve been racially profiled. You guys need to reconsider this,” she said, voicing fears of people being stopped and asked for proof of citizenship. ”To do this is really going to hurt everybody in our community.”

While backers of the resolution have voiced concerns over the city being caught in the legal crosshairs between conflicting state and federal laws, El Cajon could also face lawsuits from immigrant rights’ groups over its immigrant policies.

Salvador Salmiento with the National Day Labor Network  told the Council on January 14, “Our organization has litigated a bunch of these policies over the years,” adding that he has over the years repeatedly seen ICE detainers issued without probable cause. If immigrants suffer actual damages due to actions of the City Council or its officers, he warned, ”We will sue.”

He added that in lawsuits filed by the organization elsewhere over immigration issues, , “ICE doesn’t pay. The city pays,"adding, "El Cajon can be a better example than this.”

View ECM’s prior coverage:

https://www.eastcountymagazine.org/packed-hearing-el-cajon-council-votes-3-2-against-contentious-immigration-resolution

https://www.eastcountymagazine.org/el-cajon-council-will-vote-today-controversial-immigration-resolution

https://www.eastcountymagazine.org/latino-leaders-give-earful-el-cajon-city-council-over-proposed-immigration-resolution

East County News Service

February 9, 2025 (Julian) – The proposed supervised placement of sexually violent predator Gary Snavely at a home on Wynola Road in Julian has been cancelled, CBS 8 reports, after the homeowner withdrew the property from consideration.

The homeowner, who asked to remain anonymous, told CBS 8 that she never gave approval to Liberty Healthcare, after the company told her they were seeking placement for either “witness protection or a violent criminal.” The owner also stated that Liberty offered substantially more than market rent, but added, “I was most likely not going to go through with it.”

She indicated that she never gave final approval and was surprised to learn a court had approved the placement without her permission.

She added, "I don't want to put the community at risk, so I apologize, it's been canceled."

The CBS story indicates the media outlet reached out to Liberty Healthcare for comment, but the company did not reply.

Snavely was convicted of molesting two girls ages 8 and 9 in Orange County back in 1987. In 1996 he was convicted of failing to register as a sex offender in San Diego County and went back to prison. 

 After his release, he was placed in Jacumba in 2008 but after he abused his psychotropic medication and lied to his supervising staff he went back to Coalinga state hospital, though he was not accused of committing new crimes. Violations included failing to remain appropriately clothed at all times on his property while in public view, and failing to report any and all instances of sexual thoughts and fantasies involving sexual deviance to treatment staff.

A March 7 hearing on Snavely’s proposed placement in Julian was scheduled, but will likely be postponed.

Liberty Healthcare must now find an alternative location for Snavely's placement.

East County News Service

February 9, 2025 (Jamul) -- The Jamul-Dulzura Planning Group is seeking funds from San Diego County’s Department of Public Works to develop a community park in Jamul. While exploring potential locations for the park, the Planning Group has launched a survey asking community members what features they would like to see in the new community park.

“As we explore potential locations for this park, we want to ensure it meets the needs and desires of our community,” an email from the planning group states. To take the survey, click here.

East County News Service

February 9, 2025 (Oakland, CA) – Last week, a federal judge issued a temporary restraining order prohibiting the Trump administration from carrying out a spending freeze. “Each day that the pause continues to ripple across the country is an additional day that Americans are being denied access to programs that heal them, house them, and feed them,” Judge Loren AliKhan wrote in the ruling.

Now California Attorney General is accusing the Trump administration of defying the judge’s order and continuing to block funds to states under the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA and the Infrastructure, Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA, also known as the bipartisan infrastructure act). Bonta on Feb. 7 filed a motion on behalf of 23 state attorneys general. The motion asks the court to enforce the earlier ruling and and to order Defendants to immediately restore funds until the preliminary injunction motion can be heard and decided.

The coalition seeks to preliminarily enjoin the Trump Administration’s funding freeze, emphasizing the widespread and irreparable harm to states, which rely on billions of dollars of critical federal assistance for public services that ensure access to education, clean air and water, and health care and that support essential infrastructure projects.  More than $100 billion in Medicaid funding, tens of billions in infrastructure and climate funding, among the funding at risk in just California, according to a press release issued by Bonta. 

The case, NY v.Trump, challenges actions by President Trump, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and federal agencies attempting to pause nearly $3 trillion in federal assistance funding allocated to the states that support critical programs and services that benefit the American people. 

The Trump administration has argued that the injunction doesn’t apply to IRA and IIJA funds, the motion indicates. But the judge’s order makes no mention of any such exception.

Bonta’s motion further highlights the harm states face without these funds .

“Let’s be crystal clear: the power of the purse belongs to Congress, not the President,” said Bonta. “The Trump Administration’s dangerous and unconstitutional actions have created chaos and confusion across this country, and caused significant harm to states across the country and the millions of Americans who rely on federal funding, from children to the elderly. In yet another unlawful move, we have evidence that despite the Temporary Restraining Order we secured, the Trump Administration has continued to block funds needed for our domestic energy security, transportation, and infrastructure provided under the IRA and IIJA.”

He added, ”We’re asking the court to enforce its order and ensure that the Trump Administration reinstates access to this critical funding. No one is above the law, and at the California Department of Justice, we will not waver in our commitment to uphold the law and ensure that necessary funding for critical programs and services in states across our country can continue.”

In just this fiscal year, California is expected to receive $168 billion in federal funds – 34% of the state’s budget – not including funding for the state’s public college and university system. This includes $107.5 billion in funding for California’s Medicaid programs, which serve approximately 14.5 million Californians, including 5 million children and 2.3 million seniors and people with disabilities. Additionally, over 9,000 full-time equivalent state employee positions are federally funded. As detailed in the preliminary injunction motion, without access to federal financial assistance, many states could face immediate cash shortfalls, making it difficult to administer basic programs like funding for healthcare and food for children and to address their most pressing needs.

Additionally, as of January 2025, California has been awarded $63 billion from the IIJA and nearly $5 billion from the IRA, not including funds going to California cities, air and water districts, or other political subdivisions. Due to ongoing disruptions impacting disbursements to states despite the court’s TRO, efforts that bolster clean energy investments, transportation, and infrastructure have been put at risk, including:

• The Home Electrification and Appliances Rebates Program, for which the IRA appropriates $4.5 billion to the Department of Energy. The rebate program, administered by state energy offices under final federal grants, subsidizes low- and moderate-income households’ purchase and installation of electric heat pump water heaters, electric heat pump space heating and cooling systems, and other home electrification projects. Thousands of California homeowners have signed up for these programs, received approvals, and even started installation in reliance on these rebates, and are stuck paying their contractors an extra $8,000 if our state energy offices cannot draw down funds. As of February 5, that remained the case: the home rebate grants were being held “for agency review.”
• The Solar for All program, administered by EPA and funded by the IRA’s Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, awarded $7 billion to 60 grantees to install rooftop and community solar energy projects in low-income and disadvantaged communities. These awards—all subject to final grant agreements—support the construction of cheap, resilient power in underserved neighborhoods, and provide particular protection to communities in which wildfire risk regularly causes utilities to de-energize transmission lines. As of February 5, numerous states in the coalition were unable to access their Solar For All grant accounts.
• The Climate Pollution Reduction Grant program, administered by EPA and funded by a $5 billion IRA appropriation, supports states, tribes, and local governments in planning and implementing greenhouse-gas reduction measures. For example, the regional air district covering Los Angeles received a $500 million award, subject to a final grant agreement, to clean up the highly polluting goods movement corridor between the Imperial Valley's logistics hubs and warehouses to the Port of Los Angeles. As of February 5, this grant and other Climate Pollution Reduction Grants remained inaccessible.
• The national air monitoring network and research program under Clean Air Act sections 103 to 105, which has been administered by EPA for the last sixty years to protect communities from dangerous pollution. The IRA appropriated $117.5 million to fund air monitoring grants under this program to increase states’ abilities to detect dangerous pollution like particulate matter (soot) and air toxics, especially in disadvantaged communities. These pollutants create a particular public health emergency in areas recovering from wildfires. As of February 5, air monitoring grants remained inaccessible. 

Attorney General Bonta, along with the attorneys general of New York, Rhode Island, Massachusetts and Illinois, led the attorneys general of Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Nevada, North Carolina, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin in filing the motions.  

The motion to enforce and motion for a preliminary injunction are available  here