We now see the first tangible consequence of the recent votes by Council Members Druker and Gaasterland to veto the actions necessary to remedy the City’s noncompliance with the Housing Element of our Community Plan: a larger Watermark housing project, developed “by right.” [..........]

“By right” means no discretionary review by the DRB or Planning Commission, no environmental review under CEQA, and no Specific Plan shaping the project to meet community concerns. These are key tools of local control that have long allowed us to protect neighborhood character under the Community Plan.

Under “by right” processing, the Government Code directs that the City “may not disapprove a housing development project, nor require a conditional use permit, planned unit development permit, or other locally imposed discretionary permit, or impose a condition that would render the project infeasible.”

See full text here

We write this editorial before the voter results are in because it is relevant regardless of who the winners and losers are.

Unfortunately, our Del Mar election season turned nasty. Legitimate differences among candidates got undercut and misrepresented. Because of out-of-bounds sniping and negative personal attacks by some, voters have been inflicted with misinformation, distortions, exaggerations, and fear mongering, all while trying to make informed decisions about who is best suited to assume City Council roles. We are particularly concerned by the use incendiary imagery in campaign fliers. An election should not be a call to war but a call for best efforts. What were they thinking?

We are a very small town with a lot of neighborly interactions. Our election campaigns should encourage debate, not bickering. We dare say that we are much more in alignment on core values than our few differences allow us to acknowledge. There are significant existential challenges in front of us which will require united effort and resourceful leadership. So, on November 4 let’s consult our better angels, lick our wounds, forgive and forget—whatever metaphor gets us past this ugly period so we can work constructively together as a united community.

One of the tragedies of the federal response to the COVID-19 pandemic has been the erosion of trust in two of the most important organizations, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Advice from both agencies has been undercut by political meddling and mixed messaging from the current administration. We knew six months ago that the virus could be spread by aerosols, but the CDC said no, then yes, then no again, and just this month, yes again.

The latest fiasco is the virus-infected President saying that the Regeneron antibody cocktail he received was “curative” and urging the FDA to waive full review and grant emergency authorization for its widespread use. We know that the President received the antiviral drug Remdesivir and steroids in addition to the antibody treatment, and we do not know enough about his viral load to reach any conclusions about which of the treatments was effective. Nonetheless, the FDA is once again under pressure to fast track a treatment when clinical studies are incomplete.

Regeneron released preliminary results of its early trials in a press release (not a peer-reviewed scientific article) on September 29th. The product tested consists of two proteins that recognize different sites on the viral spike protein needed for initial infection and ideally block that infection. Volunteers who were in early stages of infection prior to generation of their own antibodies and who had high viral loads showed the most benefit from the treatment with a more rapid resolution of symptoms than placebo controls. However, because of the small number of volunteers in these subgroups, these improved outcomes were not statistically significant. This means that the results in the treated versus placebo group did not reach the 95% level of certainty that is the widely accepted standard for a significant difference. Reductions in viral loads after 7 days of treatment were significant, so the antibody treatment holds promise if future larger studies confirm these findings.