Good morning and thank you for joining us. Our top story is atheist Christians and veterans have been arguing about a 29 foot cross on Mount Soledad in Lahore you for 27 years. This week it looks like the controversy is over. Originally on public land people objected to the cross saying it was an unholy violation of the separation of church and state. Supporters said it was a war memorial to veterans and it was fine. The parties are back in forth in court for decades but now the cross the land to which it stands having been sold to a nonpublic owner has gotten the approval of the parties involved and the ninth circuit Court of Appeals. Our legal analyst joins me to look over this monumental decision. Dan, thanks for coming in. As a matter of fact I want you to tell a story about the first time you think that you were ever on the show. It was in August 2006 was the first time we spoke by phone. We did a one off on the Mount Soledad situation because at that time around that time George Thompson had issued an order requiring the city who then owned the land and the cross to take it down or face a $5000 fine. Back to the present, why did the ninth circuit courts dismissed this case quite Because there's nothing to fight about anymore. In December 2014 the U.S. Congress passed the measure that required the federal government which then owned the land to transfer it to the Mount Soledad Memorial Association. And that sale took place around July of last year for about $1.4 million. Now that the cross and the memorial site is in private hands you are no longer talking about a constitutional question. The Constitution limits the ability of the government whether it is state, local or petrol to take steps that in any way endorse religion. It sounds like the fact that all people agree this is a fine deal means the price that the Association paid was fair market. That is true. The terms of the settlement are not limited to the fact that the Department of Defense received this money from the Mount Soledad Memorial Association. Presumably the original plaintiff was an atheist and a Jewish war veterans and replaced him. Presumably got some sort of attorneys fees paid as a result of the overall settlement that they referred to that will be executed now that the ninth circuit has ordered that the case be dismissed. The Defense Department got involved in this. Today by the land originally from the city of San Francisco quick It was transferred to them. It was part of the twist and turn as part of the lands from switching from the city to the federal government and a one point the Department of interior. There were all kinds of twists and turns and ultimately it wound up in the hands of the federal government which is where it stood as of the time Congress said even to this private Association so we can be done with any constitutional controversy over whether this Memorial Association may stand. This is a case that has been pushed by people who either were atheists or were sympathetic with them. Give us a little background on the issues in this case. It was originally brought up by SAT a man who was an atheist Saint this cross has historically at least in its inception was used for religious purposes and since Amesh is -- a message of their preference for religion. He brought this case in 1989 about one week before I got my lighter gray. -- Before I got my law degree. Judge Thompson issued the first order that set of violated the California Constitution prohibition on preferences for religion. And then it wound its way through eventually federal constitutional issues came down and there were threats of fines and actually the proponents of the cross did when one in 2008 with Judge Larry Burns who inherited this case. He said there was no violation but the night circuit Court of Appeals has been consistent in saying that this cross has to come down. This is been going on for such a long time. Here at the end, one thing we have learned is that the cross gets to stay where it is. Has this case taught us anything? Hasn't made any new law with regard to the establishment of religion or separation of church and state? Yes, I think it has. Especially in this circuit Court of Appeals. With respect to whether you can do this where the government is the owner. This case always came down to a single sentence. Is this a cross that incidentally includes a Memorial associate -- a federal Memorial or is this a veteran memorial that incidentally has across parks that is where the rubber meets the road. The ninth circuit in saying a 29 foot (cross on government owned land sends the wrong message. It sends a measured of government endorsement that is unacceptable. That law will continue notwithstanding. Now that they have solved the Mount Soledad cross case what are we going to talk about quick I know. The Constitution endures and there's all kinds of problems. The show used to be called these days because there is always a shifting landscape in the law. Dan Eaton is a San Diego attorney and he's also our legal affairs commentator. He joins us often on midday edition and he was talking today about the fact that the Mount Soledad cross case seems to have finally been settled. Dan, thank you very much. Thank you.
Soledad cross case closed
On Wednesday, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ended the protracted legal war over the cross on Mt. Soledad by dismissing the latest lawsuit.
In a one-page ruling, the justices said that because the Department of Defense sold the cross and the land under it to the Mt. Soledad Memorial Association in July 2015, the central issue of the suit — a religious symbol on public land — was moot.
The skirmishing over the cross began with a lawsuit filed in 1989, when the land under the cross was owned by the city of San Diego. The courts ruled in favor of the plaintiffs many times over the years, beginning with a 1991 U.S. District Court ruling that the location of the cross was unconstitutional. But cross adherents appealed several times.
SDUT:Soledad Cross Case Concludes, Leaving Memorial In Place
San Diego's housing crisis
If you’re middle class, or poor, chances are you can’t afford to buy a house in San Diego County or even rent an apartment on your own.
That’s because San Diegans are making less money and spending more for housing than elsewhere in the country.
One real estate tracker says the median home price in San Diego County is now $495,000. Zillow puts it at $513,600.
Rent Jungle, which tracks rent trends nationwide, says the average rent for a one bedroom in the city of San Diego is $1,781 per month. A two-bedroom is $2,219 per month. Those prices are the result of big demand and little supply.
SDUT: Housing Crisis: Death of California's American Dream?
There are many obstacles to building more housing, including building regulations and environmental and labor concerns. Gov. Brown had crafted a deal to relax local land-use rules in exchange for $400 million to create more housing stock. Labor and environmental groups broke off discussions of the bill in August, leaving it dead for the year.
Lessons from San Diego's living wage law
San Diego's Living Wage ordinance requiring that contractors doing work paid for by city taxpayers pay their employees living wages went into effect in 2006.
Because of the law, nearly 4,000 city of San Diego contract workers receive $15 an hour, which includes health benefits, as well as 10 days of paid vacation.
The idea was to lift workers out of poverty, but some business owners expected an apocalypse of bankruptcies and lost jobs when the measure was passed by the City Council. But today, owners as well as employees count the law a success. And its success, say advocates, has paved the way for current efforts to raise the minimum wage.
Workers’ rights advocates believe the success of the city's new minimum wage law will depend on how vigorously the city enforces it.
Many San Diego companies don’t have a good track record when it comes to following wage laws, says inewsource reporter Chris Young. He and fellow reporter Joe Yerardi reviewed worker complaints and city documents to reveal how the city policed the living wage ordinance.
The city has had some success collecting unpaid wages and has cited businesses for failure to pay the living wage, offer paid vacation, or maintain proper records. Some companies have been banned from city contracts for violations.
inewsource: A decade later, San Diego's living wage law quiets critics, offers enforcement lessons
The new minimum wage law, however, affects far more workers. The city has budgeted $400,000 to enforce the minimum wage law, which affects 172,000 workers. That's just $3,000 more than it spends to enforce the living wage for 4,000 city workers.
Toilets often not available for downtown homeless
As the number of homeless living on San Diego streets rises, the problem of the lack of public toilets becomes more acute.
In the East Village there are some 1,100 living on the streets, but less than a dozen public toilets, several of which could be closed at any one time.
The two toilets at the Neil Good Day Center, for instance, are open 6 a.m. to 4 p.m. weekdays and 6 p.m. to 2 p.m. weekends. There are no port-a-potties.
St. Vincent de Paul’s two men’s and five women’s toilets are supposed to be open 24/7. Except they’re often closed for repairs.
KPBS News: San Diego's Homeless Are Struggling To Find Open Public Bathrooms
The Portland Loo at the corner of 14th and L, installed at great cost by the city, was recently yanked out because neighbors complained of increased crime. The Loo at Park and Market is in danger of the same fate.
The lack of working toilets for the homeless has consequences for everyone living and working downtown.
