Interview: John Eger of Envision San Diego

Wednesday, September 15, 2004, 10:56 —by oso
This item was posted in Interviews category and has 1 Comment so far.

John Eger in his office

JOHN M. EGER is the Lionel Van Deerlin Endowed Professor of Communications and Public Policy at San Diego State University and Director of SDSU’s International Center for Communications, He is also the President of the Worldwide Media Group, Inc. and counsel to the international law firm, Morrison and Foerster. Most recently Eger has been the driving force behind Envision San Diego: The Creative Community, a five year project that hopes to provide "a missing link and a model for debate and discussion in communities across the country that are trying to reinvent themselves for the new global knowledge economy and society." Envision San Diego has garnered much attention in the local media (see below) with its share of supporters and critics. The afternoon of September 2nd, I navigated through SDSU’s incessant construction and met with Eger to discuss the Envision project.

This is an abridged transcript of the interview. The full interview can be found here.

SDB: I was listening to the Envision San Diego radio show and you were discussing "civic journalism" with Neil Morgan – one of the columnists for the Union Tribune. You mentioned both the risks of civic journalism as well as its potential. I wonder if you could expand on that?

JE: Sure. This is an outcome of a reevaluation of our own journalism department. And I’m one of those – I’m not speaking for the university here, because they don’t necessarily subscribe to my position politically, nor does Envision’s media partnership – but I am one of those who grew up believing that it was a strong journalism ethic that created the kind of democracy that
d’Tocqueville talked about when he wrote, in the 1800’s, Democracy in America. We created a free press. The right of free speech is the First Amendment of the Constitution from which all amendments flow. That’s a matter of Constitutional Law and is a fundamental principal by which America has become what it is today. That is what I call civic journalism.

It is a journalism that writes and cares about its community. Issues of fundamental importance. What has happened historically? And you know, you just turned me ya-ya. I spent several years at CBS. I went and asked the chairman of CBS, or you know, he asked me, “What is this business?” And I told him it’s about news and entertainment and … he was shaking his head. What he said to me was, “no, this is a business about delivering the audience to advertisers.” What he was saying is that if you want a job here, you better understand that. That has run amuck given the level of consolidation in media these days. To me, the internet is the next frontier for civic journalism. We need to find a place where people can express their voice and be heard and where they can shape their views, not force fed, not agenda driven by either the Republican or Democrat or Green or Libertarian party; all of them whom have turned into nothing but mass agenda setting machines. Or the major media companies that report them because between the two of them – between the major political parties and the dominant media – there isn’t any real“civic journalism.” Where are journalists who are worried about what happens to the civitus, to the future of community? So to me, the single most important aspect of what we are doing is taking a bunch of media companies and collectively reminding people that there are problems to be solved in the San Diego community and that you can get involved by getting online and participating online. Which is kind of the last semblance of a village green that we have. So that’s the basic philosophy that has gone into Envision’s on-air, online dichotomy.

SDB: I don’t know if you’ve read Dan Gilmor’s We the Media?

JE: I haven’t.

SDB: Well, in that book he echoes a lot of the same points you just made. Here’s on passage:

In the 20th century, making the news was almost entirely in the province of journalists; the people we covered, or "news-makers"; and the legions of public relations and marketing people who manipulated everyone. The economics of publishing and broadcasting created large, arrogant institutions – call it Big Media, though even small-town newspapers and broadcasters exhibit some of the phenomenon’s worst symptoms.

Big Media, in any event, treated the news as a lecture. We told you what the news was. You bought it, or you didn’t. You might write us a letter; we might print it. (If we were television and you complained, we ignored you entirely unless the complaint arrived on a libel lawyer’s letterhead.) Or you cancelled your subscription or stopped watching our shows. It was a world that bred complacency and arrogance on our part. It was a gravy train while it lasted, but it was unsustainable.

Tomorrow’s news reporting and production will be more of a conversation, or a seminar. The lines will blur between producers and consumers, changing the role of both in ways we’re only beginning to grasp now. The communication network itself will be a medium for everyone’s voice, not just the few who can afford to buy multi-million-dollar printing presses, launch satellites, or win the government’s permission to squat on the public’s airwaves.

Do you think that San Diego is doing a good job as far as its transition into the new media?

JE: I think Signonsandiego.com, in terms of traditional media, has made very wise investments. The way they’ve structured this so that it isn’t smothered by the newspaper itself is very important. When I was at CBS, for example, I had responsibility for CBS cable. The network really wanted to kill cable. They saw any media as a threat. And it wasn’t because they weren’t smart people. Every media, every enterprise – maybe it goes with the institution – has a culture they develop. And the culture becomes insular and biased and somehow you have got to change the culture. So, you know, I think the idea of giving Signonsandiego their own reporters, their own camera people, the right to create their own bottom, financially speaking, has been very very smart. Now at some point, because they’re becoming mature now, they have to do some alignment between the old media and the new media and they are working that out.

Outside of the the traditional media and Signon, I’m heartened that San Diego seems to be relatively sophisticated as far as online communications. There are more and more people who are not watching the evening news or going to reading the newspaper. They are going online for their news and information. There were more modems, according to Scarabough Research, sold in San Diego over the last couple years than almost any other region. In terms of being wired, we’re always on the top ten lists, as being the most wired, having the most PCs and the most modems. We still don’t have the broadband wired and wireless infrastructure we ought to have. We’re way behind in that. But fortunately, whether you like Bush or Kerry; both of them now have broadband policies they’re developing. By 2007 they say that we’ll catch up with Korea which is 80% wired. We’re about 10th or 11th in the world as far as infrastructure sophistication.

About 10 years ago the mayor formed a City of the Future committee that I chaired and staffed and we told them then that there are too many fiefdoms here. Between Cox and Time Warner and there were about eight different competitive local access providers – there was no room for cooperation. I suggested, as did others on that committee, that we create a public utility. I mean, it just wasn’t palatable though. The mayor recoiled, the city council said “don’t come near me with that idea.”

SDB: There was a New York Times Op-Ed saying the same thing and the reaction he got wasn’t supportive, it was everybody laughing and saying "are you kidding me? You know the telecommunications industry and their lobbying; there’s no way they’d allow that."

JE: Now did you see the story today about what Dianah Neff is doing in Philadelphia?

SDB: No, I didn’t catch that.

JE: She used to be here. I know Dianah from when I was chairing a committee for Wilson on this same subject, IT, and she was on it. We recruited her, but she left in a year because she said, “this is a very unsophisticated town.” And she became the CIO of Philadelphia. She has gotten the city council of Philadelphia to invest – I think it’s like $10 million for starters – a broadband wireless network for the entire city. Now obviously, Verizon and all the existing players are saying, “oh my god, what are we going to do?” They’ll work it out. What we were going to do here was go ahead and make the investment using the city and the county, aggregating consumer demand through all the public agencies and then say, ok, anyone who has an investment with Time Warner or Cox you can invest your infrastructure in this. We will buy it back and give you a return and then you can compete on services, not on infrastructure. Because facilities based competition today is stupid. The idea of having eight ten companies building eight, ten trenches, laying fiber to go to the same customer is a waste. An outrageous waste.

SDB: A couple questions about internet access. One is that, still with all the modems and PC’s that San Diego has, to get on the internet, to have a computer, to have the education to use a computer, is not a cheap thing. And there is obviously a digital divide here in San Diego between different neighborhoods and communities. Are you worried about that and have you seen any efforts to bridge that digital divide?

JE: Yeah, the Detweiler Foundation, which unfortunately I don’t know whatever happened to them, but they were taking computers from businesses who throw them away anyway and then recycling them, making sure they are redistributed. It turns out that the digital divide is not as divisive as it once was. Last year for example, the last two years, there have been more people in those so called divided areas – south of I-8 for example – they’re spending more money on PCs and modems than they are on TV’s and other consumer electronics. That is a shift. There has been enough money to lessen the divide. Thirdly, we are seeing the prices of these boxes come down to the hundreds of dollars and that will continue, particularly as we start to see 3G roll out. Companies like Qualcomm now have enough frequencies to create a national 3G network if they want. Cell phones, which are now like mini-computers, are available the way televisions and telephones were available in another era – for lease. I don’t see anyone coming into that area though it’s coming indirectly. You could lease a phone and it will be a computer.

I don’t know why anyone ever started the leasing of computers.

SDB: I think someone tried, but it didn’t catch on. Maybe it was CompuServe that had a $20 a month deal. I don’t know why it didn’t catch on … I would have thought that would have been successful.

JE: Europe has always fascinated me because, you know, nobody ever owned a television in Great Britain. They rented it. Of course they had to pay a license fee, same thing with Japan. I’m not against that concept – I think that’s a nice concept – so that people pay $10 a month to have a computer.

SDB: I wonder if that’s not part of American culture, wanting to own something.

JE: Yeah, could be, that’s probably right.

SDB: There are two models of wireless access and infrastructure that are being developed in San Diego. One is in Encinitas. A private company called Cheetah Wireless Technologies, with the support of DEMA, is currently installing a private community-wide network that would charge residents $30 a month and businesses $40 a month for wireless access and the company is using Encinitas as a testing ground for what they want to have as a San Diego to Los Angeles wireless corridor all the way up and down 101.

Then there is also another effort that has been going on over in Golden Hill called Socalfreenet. They’ve established a community wide wireless network set up and maintained by volunteers and residents who are willing to share their broadband access. The network is free to anyone.

What would you consider the advantages and risks of each model and which should San Diego pursue?

JE: Well, I can answer the second question first, which is I don’t know. I’m sympathetic to both however because I think the ultimate goal is to get connected. At some point I might advocate – I’m never sure of this because I was part of the break up of AT&T earlier in my life which I think was a good thing, but the way we broke them up was wrong. I do think, for example, that there is always a need for public or quasi-public utilities. Particularly in communications. Because broadband communications, 24-7 if you will, is as essential today as electricity and water was in an earlier time and certainly as important as the telephone was at the turn of the century which is why we created a monopoly called AT&T. But we’ve taken such a diverted path to get there. We’ve really made competition which was a wonderful thing to introduce in the 50’s and 60’s and then again with the break up of AT&T in 1984. We’ve used competition as an important substitute for regulation. But now competition has run wild to the point of where we have no standardization. We don’t have the penetration of these new technologies – both wired and wireless – that provide the infrastructure that people need for a living. In wake of a global economy we’re playing second rate. Second fiddle to the outsourcing of millions. According to Berkeley, up to 10% of our white collar work force could be outsourced in the next 15 years. That’s a serious threat to the basic fabric of our economy.

Now let me address the two to the extent I understand them. I like the idea of the private/public partnership where a municipality brings someone in, accelerates the development of a broadband wireless system that gives people that infrastructure fast at a reasonable cost and provides universal access. It could turn out to be – depending on the contractual relationship – an albatross around the city’s neck if they haven’t really thought this through and they’re stuck with a 20-year contract – just hypothetically – and they don’t have any control over the rates and they’ve locked into a supplier and the supplier uses, as most monopolies do, predatory pricing. That to me is the biggest single risk.

The risk to me on the side of letting Socalfreenet develop is that there are not enough civic entrepreneurs there to create a seamless web that can compete, at least in terms of developing that infrastructure. But in the long run, if there were enough people you could create a freenet and never have to pay for broadband.

My optimism is that if a deal is constructed wisely, you can have both at the same time. They’re not mutually exclusive. What you’re really trying to do is round out coverage so there are no dead spots. If the municipality is wise on telecommunications and has their own office or telecommunications advisor – we recommended to Susan Golding that she create such an office. Didn’t happen. I’ll give you a copy of the report before you leave. They gather dust.

Which is the reason why we’re doing what we’re doing. Jack McGrory is a former city manager and co-chairs one of my task forces and he says, “you know, in 30 years or 40 years of public service I’ve seen 40 committees, blue ribbon, bright people from this region come together, spend a lot of time, thinking through these things, trying to develop consensus, write a great report and it’s dead on arrival."

Which is the thing that we’re trying to attack by saying look this is your community – we’re engaging in a process, we want it to be inclusive, we don’t want to marginalize anyone, we’re going to take some old ideas, hopefully look for some new, big ideas – but we’re going to give those ideas, old and new, some airtime. If you think they’re good and you’re willing to support them, help us, because only if there’s a constituency are they going to change. Most of those reports, even ours – The City of the Future Report – had no real constituency. We had 500 volunteers at one time; some very senior people. If you go through the table of contents, you will see all three universities heavily involved, the head of every major private corporation involved. But outside those 500 people, the rest of the community didn’t have a clue. And that breakdown, that disconnect between the average consumer citizen and those that are elected and appointed to service is happening all across America and we’ve got to find a way to use communication tools to bring those people together somehow.

We didn’t invite any politicians to the town hall meeting. That was a deliberate move. Some wanted to come, but you know we said, we’re not sure we’ve got our act together yet.” We now, as we move forward, will start including them. Because a year from now or two years from now we’re going to start doing shows about why they’re not responding. We’re going to start calling them and asking them, “you know, according to our polls 20% of the people think we ought to do “X,” you know, broadband wireless in this community, Mr. Murphy why don’t we have it, Mr. Madaffer why don’t we have it? And nail the city council and the county board of supervisors to the issue.

SDB: But with the City of the Future project all of those reports and data that came with it – that was before the internet.

JE: That’s absolutely right. That report was issued in 1994 before the World Wide Web. Syd Karen ran the super computer center … he said he was going to put it out on the web. And I said, “Well what do you mean?” "Well, it’s this new idea." And I had 2,600 cities ask for a copy from all over the world. It was just getting started. I think if we put it out now … I mean, yeah.

SDB: Some of the major topics I’ve been seeing in the newspaper recently are rethinking the waterfront near Harbor Drive, the new library, the development of the area around Petco Park where Street Scene just happened. A new airport is always a recurring debate as is public transportation.

When you go through the Envision website forum and the weblog, you start to see those same points being brought up again and again. Richard Florida in his book talks about the dangers of talking something to death when it doesn’t get done. You mention the same thing in your 10 steps to a Smart Community. How are those action plans going to get constructed?

JE: You know it’s funny, Richard and I have actually exchanged a lot of emails and we know each other. I play off of him, he gets more money than I do because he’s got that book out there. But he says there are three “T’s”:

  • Technology
  • Tolerance
  • Talent

In my presentation I say, "Richard that’s alright, but how do you get there?" The three C’s: You really need to have the connectivity – the connectivity of people, but also technology. We also need that collaborative civic engagement. It’s only when the average citizen feels that they have a voice, they have a vote, that anything gets done. This is a risk and I know it’s a risk. There are a lot of people who say to me, "John, you’re really wasting away your capital because we know that housing is the number one issue, we know that traffic is one or two. I say, you know you may be right, but I don’t know that the people really feel that way.

For example I listened a lot about the airport. And then I began to ask in my own formal polls, "how important is the airport?" And you know, it’s not that important to a lot of people. I mean a lot of people don’t care if we have an international airport. And even Qualcomm … Dan Sullivan, who’s executive vice-president said, "Qualcomm’s position is that we do not need a new airport and we travel internationally. It’s good enough that San Francisco, San Jose, and L.A. provide us all the links we need. I don’t want to see us spend 4 billion dollars like Denver did on an airport we don’t really need."

Now, I believe the process needs to work itself out. I don’t think it’s going to happen right away, but between March of 2005 and March 2006, if this succeeds, if we really are successful at persuading people that they do have a voice. If we have reduced the ignorance and apathy of "I don’t know and I don’t care." And I think the ignorance follows the apathy. I think most people, if they feel they have a voice, will get informed. I want to see that happen. I want to see some traction. Because, I would rather they say to us, "these are the top three issues that are important to me." And then we can rally around them. Now how do we get there?

I want, if there is a constituency that supports these ideas, then ask the task forces, look you guys did a great job in the whole process of education and you got a lot of people out there who are looking for action, now what are you going to do? And they may say, we want to see a ballot proposition, we want to back a candidate, we want to see a show, and we, the media, will then cover that.

The whole point of Envision is to create two concentric circles, one of them the media who is there to report, not to decide, and then the task forces who are community leaders of all ages, sexes, and ethnicities who feel empowered again to create a new civic dialogue. And if they say, "yeah, we need to do this," then we will cover it. That process alone, an informed electorate, will give us the basis for political action. And we’ll cover it.

And I’m hoping that it will be enough so that Envision itself can remain somewhat disconnected from the actual decision making process. People ask, "what do you think about this, what do you think about that?"My answer is that I have my own ideas, but I’m not sure they’re the right ones. Who am I to say, "this is what we should do."

So I’m trying to run Envision in a way that is the best of the journalistic method. I’m here to listen; I want to report the good, the bad, and the ugly. And I want to cover all sides of the story. I don’t have those choices because I don’t run anything. The media is there, they’ve agreed to come to the table. The task forces are gathering, they’ve agreed to participate in the process. Some of them are taking this really serious and I’m delighted. Others aren’t sure what this is about yet even though they are steeped in the subject matter.

One woman who was with SANDAG for 30 years almost broke down the other day because she said, "you know, I have been a problem solver, I have written those reports, I’ve advocated to the city council that we need to do X, Y, and Z. But this is all new to me. Now you’re asking me to be an educator, to educate the public and to communicate what I know about land use planning. Because without an informed public, nothing’s going to happen."

And it was like, she’s rediscovering America, what it’s like to live in a civil and democratic society. It couldn’t have gladdened my heart more. Because that’s really what the heart of Envision is.

Just as an aside, we had three graduate students two summers ago look at five issues: housing, growth, water, education, and the border/immigration. For three months they watched the evening news cast of five commercial stations and did content analysis. These issues were covered less than one percent in terms of a 30 minute or 1 hour broadcast. To the extent that they were covered, they were not covered in any depth. Almost everyone did a housing story in during that three month period. At least one. The paper did a big piece, usually on the front of the home section or metro that talked about how the price of housing increased. Where we ranked in terms of affordability. But it didn’t talk about why this was the case.

So when we did some surveys, we asked people who are concerned about housing. Do you think our transportation policy has anything to do with affordable housing? Nine out of ten didn’t see the connection between transportation policy and affordable housing.

So, the task force talks about the environment, land use planning, transportation, and housing and you have sitting at the table people from the Sierra Club, the Autobahn society, developers, and land use planners and a few people from the housing association concerned about affordable housing. They all know each other, but they’ve never really talked before. So we’re asking them, "ok, so you all agree that this is a problem, you all agree that they’re connected. That land use, environment, transportation, telecommunications, and housing are all related. Now, how do we communicate that to the broader public?"

SDB: If a reader of San Diego Blog would like to get involved in one of these task forces, what is the best way to do that?

JE: Go to http://www.envisionsandiego.org/task.php, read the task force that you are interested, and then send an email to info@envisionsandiego.org and we’ll contact you. We’ll send them a notice of the next planning meeting.

 

When we get this new website up, you’ll be able to see all the people involved, they will be able to read all the minutes, they’ll be able to make judgments on the taskforces or if they want to come and join the task forces. And we’ll have the tools, hopefully online, that they can participate with without ever coming to the meetings. Because we’ll have people, hopefully students, to go through these blogs and when the task force meets, “here’s what happened last month after you met is that all these people thinks this is a bunch of shit and we’re going to report that to the media community."

That’s the way we kind of play it, a little bit of hardball. But that’s the way we have to do it. When we get a little further down the road people say to the city council, you know, “A, B, and C ” and then we’re going to have three chairs for that committee to the city council to Madaffer and whoever, “if you don’t come, we’re going to say that you decided not to come.” Gloria Penner, you know, give her hell.

We have one opportunity that’s kind of new. Let me just ask you how would you run it. Morris Kaplan is a former securities advisor – he’s now like 90 years old. But he loved this. He used to be editor of the Yale Law Journal I think. But he asked me, why don’t you do a journal to get young people involved? And I said, “gee, but it’s such an expensive process and by the time they write an article and get it published, a whole semester or year could go by." And I persuaded him to give me $10,000 for five years to create an online journal called the Creative Community Journal. It’s still not enough. But if you really wanted to get students involved. Not just here, but at UCSD, USD, Community Colleges – what would you do? How would you try to create an organization? You get students involved. You give them the seed money. I mean I’d be happy to just write a check to let them organize this. So the Creative Community Journal would be run by students. Whether we liked it or not, they’d cover any stories that they wanted. They would go through papers every week and post the stories that they think make sense. But more importantly, at least once a month, they would have a summation – their views, their journal pieces. Now, if I can’t run it for ten thousand? What do I need to raise to run it? And is this something that, you might know someone who would be interested doing this?

SDB: Right here on campus is Bernie Dodge, a San Diego Blogger and professor of education. In his class, all the graduate students have their own blog. It’s mandatory. And they’re becoming teachers. So the point of the class is to get their students to have blogs when they have their own classes.

JE: Wow. I’m going to call Bernie today. You know, I met him years ago. Universities are big places. But I created a new program which we just $2,500,000 from Qualcomm for called the ICT honors courses. And Bernie’s agreed to teach one of those courses and I think that’s what he’s doing, he’s teaching a segment of that to this new group. He’s a revolutionary.

SDB: Yeah, I don’t know him personally. I read his blog and I’ve emailed him a couple times to ask him questions, but he seems like a great guy.

And he’s not the only one doing it. People at UCSD, like Sixth College, they have a blogging system.

JE: Oh yeah? Well, Gabrielle Wienhausen, do you know the name?

SDB: No.

JE: She’s the Provost of Sixth College. And she’s the Co-Chair of the Creativity and Innovation task force and she really gets it. Boy does she get it.

SDB: I’m sure. She would have to for that college.

JE: Yeah, that construct is just in gestation. And the nice thing about the capital campaign is that they’re going to have the resources to do a lot of fascinating things with technology. It was Peter Cowhey [the dean of IRPS at UCSD] who said, why don’t we take Balboa Park, which is a treasure, a landmark, and find a way to use technology to create a global presence for it. It certainly has it in San Diego. And create, if you will, a cultural corridor between Balboa Park and all the other major destinations: the zoo, Gaslamp, etc. I’m not entirely sure what his construct is, but I like the idea because what I see happening now worldwide is a movement by world class cities to take their assets and leverage them. I was going to say the Sydney Opera House, but it’s more than that. Hong Kong, for example, is going to take West Kowloon and turn it into a huge performance arts center.

SDB: Or what Singapore has done along Esplanade?

JE: Sure. And this is where the bloggers come in – we need the big idea. What’s the big idea? I mean, there’s nothing that’s impossible. Maylem Bernam, who’s 77 years old, I interviewed for the town hall meeting. And I said, "Maylem, you know this place, I said, we need big ideas to punch through this thick web of consciousness" and he said; "San Diego and Tijuana ought to go after the 2016 Olympics." It’s now circulating among the Envision people and they are saying, “Well, that’s ridiculous.”

Well wait a minute, whether we got it or not, the fact that we did joint economic planning, joint land use planning.

SDB: So you’re talking about a bi-national bid for the Olympics?

JE: Exactly, but think about what you have to do to get your bid right.

In today’s Regionalism meeting I had the head of the Bi-National Chamber of Commerce, the director of the Tijuana Economic Development Corporation, City Manager of Solana Beach; people who are going to resonate. They said, "You know what we need to do?" We need to create a regional forum for bi-national land use planning. I mean think about it: water, law enforcement; all these things that aren’t happening.

I actually had a proposal that you’ll which you’ll see buried in here which I was pushing for three years and then I finally burned myself out. But I argued for a free trade zone for telecommunications. As an FCC Lawyer I know that there is no reason why a call from San Diego to Tijuana is a long-distance call except that it’s artificial. We drew a line years ago. We could, for example, for the purpose of telecommunications, say instead, “the line is now down here.”

And that would create a whole free trade zone. Today, because of Philadelphia, I said, why don’t we create a Wi-Fi network?

I actually ran it all the way up to the governor’s office and had an appointment with the Secretary of Transportation, had the Border Commissioner, had Hector Osuna, the senator from Baja look at it. And Carlos Slim killed it. Carlos Slim owns Telmex, he’s a major contributor to Fox and he said "not over my dead body."

SDB: Mary Lou Aleskie talks about the need for a central arts district. We touched on this a little bit, but do you think we do need a central arts district?

Let me tell you some of the politics in this town. You know, we still have an insecurity complex. There are people who think that San Diego can only afford to put on one event a week so if the symphony has something going, the opera can’t. The symphony and the opera have been fighting each other for years. Now, you have a lot of other groups who want to contribute and why not? I mean, we’re a diverse city. It’s the job of a community that really believes that arts are fundamental to organize themselves. Having something bigger than just the San Diego Art and Culture Commission for this region is probably timely. Arts districts, arts administrations, arts consuls, the world over, are good not if they direct, not if the legislate, but if they facilitate cooperation. Among and between all those who are providing art, providing cultural activities and those who are receiving them.

I mean, that is a legitimate role for a government or a quasi-government agency and we just don’t have that. It’s not happening. And as a consequence, we don’t have the vibrant art and culture scene.


Links related to Envision San Diego:

Popularity: 3% [?]

Voice Your Opinions. Join Today.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

One Response to “Interview: John Eger of Envision San Diego”

  1. Joe Crawford said on Wednesday, September 15, 2004, 11:53

    Oso, kudos on this wonderful interview. Really great piece. Dare I say this is the meatiest post yet to San Diego Blog!

Leave a Reply