From the Cheap Seats: A Favor from San Diego Sup. Terra Lawson-Remer

San Diego County Supervisor Terra Lawson-Remer did a big favor for residents recently by making known how she wants to lead county government. She also made clear that voters in the upcoming District 1 special election will face a profound choice, between indulging her “bold” ambitions to expand the scope of county government or taking a more moderate, practical approach to solving problems.

Lawson-Remer, Vice Chair of the Board of Supervisors, outlined an expansive vision for San Diego County in her April 16 2025 State of the County address. 

Absent from her message was a status report on where the county government now stands. There were no current performance metrics — like homelessness rates, housing production, crime statistics, fiscal benchmarks, or satisfaction with existing public services. Nothing to help assess the actual “state of the county” or whether the county’s existing initiatives are succeeding or failing.

Lawson-Remer acknowledged the widely recognized challenges associated with homelessness, high housing costs, and behavioral health crises but did so mostly as justification for future spending. Her rhetoric fails to admit that in great part these problems are the result of prior failures of government policy. 

Instead, the Supervisor from coastal San Diego’s District 3 proposed a sweeping set of new programs, including a $1 billion per year tax measure, a county-run managed healthcare system, massive investments in climate action, and major public infrastructure spending. The address sounded like a campaign platform. 

Lawson-Remer’s idea to put county government in charge of a complex health service is daunting under the best circumstances, carrying with it immense financial liability. No analysis was presented regarding the administrative costs, risks, and potential consequences of the county assuming this responsibility. 

Lawson-Remer also called for tapping into county reserves to finance operations, which is a cavalier approach to fiscal stewardship. Reserves exist to provide financial stability during economic downturns or emergencies. Redefining them as a piggy bank for new, ongoing spending initiatives is a risky departure from sound budgeting practices. Fiscal prudence—especially in a volatile financial environment—demands caution when the county is facing a sizable budget deficit, as it is now.

Lawson-Remer’s address underscores the high stakes in the District 1 special election, which pits Imperial Beach Mayor Paloma Aguirre against Chula Vista Mayor John McCann. 

Electing Aguirre—a self-described progressive Democrat aligned ideologically with Lawson-Remer—would hand control of the Board of Supervisors to a progressive bloc. With that majority, the board would be free to pursue the agenda outlined in the State of the County address: higher taxes, expanded bureaucracy, and an even broader reach of county government into areas traditionally outside its scope.

Rather than insisting on accountability, performance, and fiscal prudence, the board would be dominated by a philosophy that views government expansion not as a tool to solve specific problems, but as a goal in itself. 

This approach exacerbates the foremost problem facing San Diego County residents—the intensifying pressure on our cost of living. More expansive government increases that pressure and drives people and businesses away from the Golden State.

Paloma Aguirre’s opponent, Mayor John McCann, is a Republican who has served in Chula Vista’s city government for ten years, winning three elections in a city where Democrats hold a 44-24 registration advantage over Republicans. He did that by developing a reputation as a practical, solutions-oriented politician who could work effectively across party lines. McCann is a moderate, Aguirre an extremist.

The District 1 election is a critical turning point. It is not merely about who will represent one corner of the county; it is about what kind of government will control San Diego County. A vote for McCann is a vote for moderation, practicality, and fiscal prudence, for living within our means.

In contrast, a vote for Paloma Aguirre is a vote for larger, less accountable, costly government. It is a vote to entrust even more taxpayer dollars to politicians who have not shown they can deliver tangible results with the resources they already have.

County residents deserve better. They deserve leadership focused on sound policy, practical solutions, and responsible stewardship of public funds. The choice is stark — and the future direction of San Diego County hangs in the balance.