San Diego: Urban Problems Case Study

San Diego, California is an American city with a total population of approximately 1.27 million. The average household size is 2.6 people, while the average family size is 3.33. The ethnicity of the city's population is broken down as follows: approximately sixty-five percent white, seven percent black, one percent native-American, fifteen percent Asian and twenty-seven percent Hispanic. The median household income in the city is $58,815, while the median family income is $71,026. The median income per capita is $29,846. In 2003, the crime rates for San Diego per 1,000 citizens were recorded as follows: 5.1 murders, 31.9 forcible rapes, 128 robberies, 414 aggravated assaults, 635 burglaries, 2,022 larceny-thefts and 987 motor vehicle thefts ("San Diego city, California", April 28, 2008).

History of San Diego

Europeans originally settled San Diego in 1769. Spaniards first came to the area in an attempt to convert the local Native Americans to Christianity. The first major institution in the area thus became the California Missions. In 1821, Mexico won its independence from Spain, and San Diego, as well as the rest of what would eventually

become the state of California, became part of Mexico. The government of the city was lead by a mayor, which the local Spanish-speakers referred to as an alcalde. The San Diego landscape at this point was made up of mostly ranches and the aforementioned missions ("History of San Diego Government", April 28, 2008).

In 1846, the history of the San Diego area was altered forever by the outbreak of the Mexican-American War. After America won the war, the 1848 Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo awarded the lands of soon-to-be-states California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas to the United States. In the same year, gold was discovered in Northern California, which quickly caused a population explosion in the entire area. Due to the quickly growing population, California qualified for statehood and was admitted to the Union in 1850 ("History of San Diego Government", April 28, 2008).

On March 27, 1850, San Diego became California's third official city, with an elected local government consisting of a Common Council, Mayor, City Marshall, City Attorney, City Clerk, City Assessor and City Treasurer. In 1887, the government was changed from this to a Mayor-Council form as is common in most modern American cities. This government went largely unchanged until 2004, when voters approved a new proposition, which could eventually result in a shift to a "Strong Mayor" form of government ("History of San Diego Government", April 28, 2008).

Positive Aspects of San Diego

San Diego is one of the most popular vacationing hotspots in the United States. It features soft sand and excellent surfing conditions for people interested in the beaches. The city also includes reservoirs for boating, fishing and hiking. There are also designated sites for activities such as jet skiing and windsurfing. San Diego Park and Recreation also features an aquatics program for swimming and playing in the local waters ("Leisure", April 28, 2008).

Outdoor recreation and scenic beauty are provided by many miles of open space preserved by the city of San Diego. A multitude of additional recreational activities are provided by the city's recreation centers. There are three municipal golf courses open to the public, which are run by the City of San Diego Park and Recreation Department. Additional recreation is provided by Mission Bay Park, the largest aquatic park on the West Coast, which covers 4,000 acres. For hiking and overnight camping, the city provides Mission Trails Regional Park, which is made up of over 5,800 acres of both natural and developed land ("Leisure", April 28, 2008).

San Diego also features one of the most famous exhibits in the United States: the San Diego Air and Space Museum. The museum guides visitors through the history of air and space travel, starting from the very beginning. The exhibit begins with a model of the Montgolfier brothers' hot air balloon from 1783. The balloon is known historically as the first vehicle to actually defy gravity by lifting a man up above the ground for a prolonged period of time ("Exhibits Overview", April 28, 2008).

At the same location is the International Aerospace Hall of Fame, which is the only institution of its kind in the world. Its purpose is to honor men and women who have made a significant contribution to the advancement of the air and space sciences. The exhibits in this area include portraits of the hall of fame members accompanied by models or other relics signifying their contribution to air and space travel. Notable exhibited members of the hall of fame include Lindbergh, Montgolfier, Earhart, Gagarin and Armstrong ("Exhibits Overview", April 28, 2008).

The museum also features the Dawn of Flight exhibit, which depicts the Kitty Hawk, North Carolina site where the first successful powered, controlled flight took place. Other exhibits in this area include mint-condition original aircrafts from World War II, the Vietnam War and the Korean War ("Exhibits Overview", April 28, 2008).

Negative Aspects of San Diego

San Diego, however, also has its share of urban problems. Corruption in the city government has become a major concern in the area. The city manager and city auditor both quit in disgrace in 2004, after extensive investigations into government corruption. The accusations were that the city officials were skimming on pension plans for government workers in order to keep some of their pet projects alive. They allegedly compounded the issue by refusing to clean up their mistakes by working to reimburse the disgruntled employees (Ritter, October 25, 2004).

One USA Today editorial wrote that the city of San Diego had changed from "America's Finest City" to "Enron by the Sea." Bond underwriters on Wall Street are convinced that city officials have tricked them in the past and remain skeptical about accepting new loans until more of the alleged government corruption as been sorted out. Because of the scandal, the city's credit rating fell dramatically and left San Diego working to pay back enormous interest on its debt (Ritter, October 25, 2004).

One lawyer, who won a class action lawsuit against some of the government officials involved in the scandal, was quoted as saying, "If they had borrowed the money from loan sharks instead of from Wall Street, there would already be bodies floating off Point Loma." Extended court battles forced the city government to agree to fully fund the pension plans for their employees in 2004 (Ritter, October 25, 2004).

Experts say that San Diego's problems really began in the 1980s, when massive inflation took a huge toll on the lifestyles of retirees in the city. Government officials used the existing tax revenue surplus of the time to award the retirees with bonuses in an effort to stimulate the economy, rather than set that money aside in case of a later economic emergency. Later, realizing that the budget was being greatly constrained by the payments being made to the pension plans for city employees, the city council allegedly made an illegal deal to increase bonuses to retirees even more in exchange for lowering payments to the pension plans (Ritter, October 25, 2004). This incident shows that even cities as outwardly attractive as San Diego are not immune to government corruption at the highest levels.

The Urban Problem

Like the rest of the United States, San Diego is currently in the midst of a major illegal immigration crisis. Illegal immigration is currently costing the state of California an estimated $10 billion per year. The combination of jailing 18,000 illegal immigrants at a cost of $750 million per year and other factors are being placed as a burden on taxpayers in the state. The current estimated population of illegal immigrants in the state is 2.3 million. As this number climbs, the burden on taxpayers will only grow. The problem is seen as a serious contributing factor to the state's overall budget deficit of over $6 billion (Hollingsworth, April 3, 2006).

Some observers presume that the problem is the result of illegal city government policies that result in the creation of "sanctuary cities." These are cities where the local law enforcement officials have been instructed not to ask for identification or proof of American citizenship unless an individual is a suspect in a crime. This makes the cities easily inhabitable by illegal immigrants, as they do not have to worry about being asked probing questions as long as they keep to themselves. The largest cities in the state of California, Los Angeles, San Diego and San Francisco, are all considered to be sanctuary cities (Hollingsworth, April 3, 2006).

Critics of these ordinances say that they not only encourage illegal immigration into these cities, but they also make it nearly impossible for local law enforcement to stop gang violence and drug rings. Many of the most dangerous, homicidal gangs in the San Diego area are reportedly made up of mostly illegal immigrants. The sanctuary policies tie the hands of police officers in that they are not allowed to turn in gang members whom they know have entered the country illegally. Sanctuary critics also point out that these dangerous foreign gangs prey mostly on other legal and illegal immigrants, thus nullifying the claim that these policies are beneficial to foreign workers (Hollingsworth, April 3, 2006).

Opponents of the sanctuary city concept argue that cities practicing these kinds of policies should be shut off from state and federal aid for any and all of their local government programs. Cities that engage in sanctuary policy would lose funding for things like highways and parks, while at the same time receiving grants for anti-drug and anti-gang task forces. The idea is to make sure that the burden of this kind of blatant support for illegal immigration would at least be removed from the state taxpayers as a whole and instead be placed solely on the taxpayers within the individual city in question. This would be expected to serve as a major deterrent (Hollingsworth, April 3, 2006).

The mostly conservative anti-sanctuary movement is currently battling the mostly liberal pro-sanctuary movement in the courtrooms of cities all across America, with San Diego being one of the debate's biggest hotspots. Conservatives argue that liberals are blatantly taking the side of illegal immigration by actually providing it with perks such as reduced college tuitions, health care benefits and driver's licenses. They say if liberal politicians refuse to take actions toward stopping illegal immigration; the least they can do is take action toward ceasing to encourage it (Hollingsworth, April 3, 2006).

Many liberals, on the other hand, see sanctuary cities as the safest and most humane method of dealing with the illegal immigration problem. Their argument is that these immigrants are still human beings, and should be treated with the utmost dignity and respect. Additionally, they say that requiring searches and demands for legal documentation will only inhibit the efforts of law enforcement officials. Illegal immigrants are much less likely to report crimes and allow themselves to be used as witnesses if they fear that they will be found out and deported (Hollingsworth, April 3, 2006).

The Solution

The national issue of illegal immigration, and more specifically the issue of sanctuary cities, is extremely complex. Both sides of the debate make logical, valid arguments. On the one hand, conservatives are right in pointing out that foreigners who enter the country illegally begin their stay in the United States as criminals and, in a perfect world, should be treated as such. The burden they place on taxpayers around the country is tremendous, and any crime that occurs with the involvement of illegal immigrants is one more crime than we would have if America's borders were completely secure. Additionally, mandating that police officers do not check the citizenship status of suspect illegal immigrants ties their hands almost completely in their attempts to regulate the illegal population of their cities. It is absolutely unfair that those who sneak into the country illegally are given preferential treatment over those who get in the back of the line and go to great lengths to obey American immigration laws, and under the law these criminals deserve to be deported.

The Left, however, also makes a compelling argument, hinged largely on principals of human compassion. Under the United States Constitution, all men are said to be created equally, and thus deserve only the most humane treatment, regardless of the methods they used to enter the country. If we make an attempt to relate to these immigrants, it is clear to see that, given the same circumstances in our home country, we all would break whatever laws necessary in order to feed our families.

There is also a practical argument to be made for allowing sanctuary cities. Although the hands of the police may be tied when it comes to catching illegal immigrants, stopping the police from checking immigration status makes possible the reports of many more crimes. With a large immigrant population, whether legal or illegal, afraid to ask the police for assistance or report crimes to their person or property, many of these sanctuary cities could become much more dangerous. Additionally, the cost of maintaining such a massive population of illegal immigrants may seem miniscule if compared to the taxpayer burden that could be incurred by forcing all of these immigrants to be deported by force in one sweeping move.

The solution to this problem lies somewhere in between the two popular extremes. It is important to stop liberals from crying foul every time they feel illegal immigrant criminals are being mistreated when officials actually enforce the immigration laws that are on the books. Meanwhile, conservatives have to understand what an impractical proposition it is to simply get on a moral high horse and say all immigrants of illegal status need to be deported immediately. Although that may be the fairest thing to do, since they are openly breaking American laws, the solution to this problem will never be perfectly fair.

Step one is obviously to take whatever are the necessary steps to make the border as secure as possible. Constructing our own version of the Great Wall of China along a Mexican-American border that stretches for hundreds of miles will only cost an incredible amount of money to taxpayers, without solving the problem that is at the heart of the issue. Much more practical is to use the idea of the electronic fence. Computerized tracking of the comings and goings of immigrants across the border will cost much less money and be much more effective in cutting down on the sheer number of illegal immigrants crossing the border on a daily basis.

That being said, it is clear that the will to enhance the socioeconomic status of oneself as well as one's family is extremely powerful. Where there is a will to enter this country illegally, the immigrants will find a way. Therefore, the second part of the plan to solve the illegal immigration crisis is to remove the incentive for coming to America in the first place. Foreign illegals enter this country because they feel they have a better chance to find the most lucrative possible jobs here than they do in their own country. Current laws for restricting the hiring of illegal immigrants are not nearly strict enough. Many major businesses find loopholes for these regulations or ignore them altogether and wholly get away with it. Businesses thrive on the cheap and silent labor they enjoy from employing illegal immigrants. It is important for corporations as well as local businesses to be held accountable for the people they hire. Strict fines and even lengthy prison sentences need to be doled out to those who knowingly employ people who are not legal American citizens.

Finally, aid to the Mexican economy is critical in stopping the crisis. Immigrants come to America illegally because they feel they cannot find sufficient employment in their home country. Whatever trade restrictions or cash infusions into their economy that are needed, must be executed. If Mexican citizens feel that their own country is providing them sufficient employment and decent living wages, they will have no incentive to risk life and limb by illegally sneaking into the United States. Many conservatives would likely be concerned at the prospect of restricting trade with Mexico, but they would be pacified by the positive economic effects on taxpayers of reducing the illegal immigration burden. Much more important than trying to forcibly prevent illegal immigrants from crossing the border, is removing their reasons for doing so.

Works Cited

"Exhibits Overview". San Diego Air & Space Museum. April 28, 2008 .

"History of San Diego Government". City of San Diego. April 28, 2008 .

Hollingsworth, Dennis. "Cities encourage illegal immigration". The San Diego Union-Tribune. April 3, 2006. April 28, 2008 .

"Leisure ". City of San Diego. April 28, 2008 .

Ritter , John. "San Diego now 'Enron by the Sea'". USA Today. October 25, 2004. April 28, 2008 .

"San Diego city, California". U.S. Census Bureau. April 28, 2008 .