By Cory Briggs
I was thrilled to read in the San Diego Free Press the recent critique of the Citizens’ Plan that former City Councilmember Donna Frye and I have been promoting and that will appear on the November 2016 ballot. The critique’s author (a lobbyist and developer’s lawyer) raises an excellent question about the initiative’s effects on East Village and Barrio Logan, but he provides nothing except wrong answers that rest on a series of false claims. Responding to the critique thus gives me a good opportunity to explain some of the benefits of the initiative that have not yet received a lot of media attention.
Before debunking the specific claims in the critique, it is important to understand what the Citizens’ Plan does and does not do downtown. For starters, the initiative allows convention center facilities, a sports facility (not necessarily football), or combined facilities within the boundaries of Imperial Avenue to the south, 17th Street to the east, K Street to the north, and Park Boulevard to the west – and nowhere else. Significantly, it includes no mandate that such development be given priority over any other development projects, offers zero guaranty that the development will come to fruition, allows the development to be done “in addition to” all other development already allowed, and requires that the development be done (if it’s done at all) “in accordance with all other applicable legal requirements.” In short, the initiative does nothing more than enhance downtown’s revitalization prospects.
[I]t is important to understand what the Citizens’ Plan does and does not do downtown.
At the same time, the Citizens’ Plan would bring about substantial victories for the public overall. Consider just two among many. Whether we’re talking about residents of East Village and Barrio Logan, or elsewhere in the City, all of us will benefit from having a competitive Transient Occupancy Tax rate because of the $18 million or more in additional revenues that would be generated each year. How much infrastructure could we fix with these new revenues? How may fire stations and libraries could we build? How many parks could we open?
Another benefit would be the preservation of the Qualcomm Stadium site in Mission Valley for higher-education uses. The Citizens’ Plan explicitly contemplates that the site will be made available for SDSU, UCSD, or our community colleges to use as “research and development facilities” with “campus-serving commercial buildings.” That’s essentially what the critique was praising for downtown when it touted “an education and high[-]tech cluster similar to what has happened near UCSD.” What good reason is there for ignoring such an opportunity in Mission Valley? Why limit it to downtown? Why not make it possible in both places? There’s no good reason not to try it in both places.
The Citizens’ Plan has many other virtues, which will become evident as the critique’s claims are scrutinized. Let’s look at them now.
False Claim 1: “The Citizens’ Plan is oblivious to the urban neighborhoods it most impacts.”According to the critique, “nary a word is in the Plan about creating economic opportunities, educational opportunities, social justice, environmental health, homelessness, affordable housing, nor even the plans or aspirations of the neighborhoods it directly impacts.” It’s hard to take the assertion seriously because the author himself admits, in the very next breath, that “not every ordinance or plan can address or even touch upon these issues.” What the critique seems to be implying is that an initiative as lengthy as the Citizens’ Plan is – well, it should have also tackled some of the big issues affecting East Valley and Barrio Logan.
Guess what? It does.
What the largest yet-to-be-redeveloped portion of East Village needs is a realistic opportunity for substantial economic investment and a big dose of environmental justice. The likelihood of such an opportunity is greatly increased by the Citizens’ Plan in several ways. First, it reduces the burdens of compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act not only for the development made possible by the initiative but also for any joint revitalization that combines at least one of the initiative authorized uses with one or more uses already authorized. All such revitalization must still satisfy CEQA’s mitigation measures, which is the part of CEQA that implements the protection of people and their environment, but the other requirements of CEQA will not apply; that, in turn, seriously reduces the risk of project-delaying or -killing injunctions. This, of course, is a reasonable compromise because downtown in general and East Village in particular have already been the subject of considerable environmental analysis. The marginal benefit of one more lengthy study pales in comparison to the benefits of making it easier and less expensive to revitalize this part of downtown with all the environmental protections that CEQA mitigation provides.
[I]t requires a lot of interest groups who ordinarily would be fighting one another for a slice of the proverbial pie to work together to expand the size of the pie that everyone will share.
Second, it creates competition among potential uses that will increase the likelihood that the MTS bus yard in East Village will be moved. If we are going to talk about environmental justice, then we need to own up to the injustice of that bus yard: the air pollution alone is disgraceful. Public-transit systems barely have enough money to operate, much less to relocate. The substantial monies needed to move the bus yard are not going to come from incremental redevelopment of a few million dollars here and there. In the absence of the necessary political will and considerable public finances, neither of which has been shown to exist so far, moving the bus yard requires a revitalization project that will be big enough and provide enough return to its investors that they are willing to absorb the relocation costs. The move will also require significant political pressure on the various decision-makers on the MTS board and at the City and County levels. The initiative gives major political players and business interests incentive to join with neighborhood leaders and advocacy organizations to ensure that the move occurs sooner rather than later.
That brings me to the third way in which the Citizens’ Plan will provide greater economic opportunity without sacrificing environmental protection for East Village and Barrio Logan: it requires a lot of interest groups who ordinarily would be fighting one another for a slice of the proverbial pie to work together to expand the size of the pie that everyone will share. There will be plenty to be gained for everyone through cooperation and compromise – far more than any narrow subset of stakeholders could ever realistically hope to achieve by going it alone – thanks to the incentives created by the initiative. People need to consider the likelihood of maximizing the revitalization potential for East Village and Barrio Logan without bringing more stakeholders into the fold. The fewer the stakeholders, the lower the odds.
In sum, the first claim is false because the Citizens’ Plan gives these neighborhoods far more opportunity and leverage in charting and improving their futures than the status quo provides.
False Claims 2 & 3: “The urban neighborhoods are doing well without their Plan.” “The Plan would impede the growth of an innovation district and replace it with a convention and entertainment zone.” These two claims rest on serious misinterpretations of the Citizens’ Plan. As noted above, nothing in the initiative “replaces” anything in East Village; what the initiative authorizes there is “in addition to” everything else that’s already on the planning books. In fact, the initiative was drafted with the “trend toward an educational and high[-]wage job cluster” that the critique’s author touts, and with innovative redevelopment like the Makers Quarter and IDEA District would help achieve, very much in mind. The initiative goes one step further, however, and contemplates such opportunities not only downtown but in Mission Valley too.
Sticking with downtown for the moment: while drafting the Citizens’ Plan, I spoke to multiple stakeholders about the potential for economic and land-use innovations like the Makers Quarter and IDEA District. There was lots of positive feedback that the opportunities created by a campus-style convention center on Tailgate Park – whether or not combined with a sports facility – would help accelerate the development of things like the Makers Quarter and IDEA District. Consequently, the potential for high-paying arts-, entertainment-, and recreation-related jobs would actually go up, stakeholders assured me, with the right design and integration of the larger facilities with the relatively smaller innovation- and tech-oriented businesses. The latter would encourage more human-scale development at the street level and offer the sort of diverse attractions necessary to bring year-around vibrancy supported by locals and tourists alike to what might otherwise be dull and sporadic. Nothing in the Citizens’ Plan prohibits the pursuit of such synergies. (Just last week, JMI Realty representative Steve Peace was interviewed by NBC’s Gene Cubbison and described the company’s focus on “scalable,” “people-friendly” development.)
[T]he Citizens’ Plan would actually facilitate and enhance innovation districts not only in the East Village but in Mission Valley.
The critique mentions a variety of other benefits of innovation districts. Those benefits are certainly real. The author errs, however, when he implies that the “academic expansion” contemplated by the Citizens’ Plan for Mission Valley would make that site incapable of providing similar opportunities. He thinks it would be fantastic to bring a UCSD lab downtown as an “anchor institution.” If it would be a good idea to have a university expand and become a downtown anchor, why would it not be good to do the same thing in Mission Valley? The author doesn’t answer that question. He suggests there’s something about downtown’s infrastructure that gives it an edge, citing one of his own blogs last November. Among the “selling points” he mentioned there for a downtown satellite university were the “beauty of the location” and its “proximity” to the trolley line. Downtown and Mission Valley each have unique selling points, but proximity to the trolley line that already exists at the Mission Valley site and the potential beauty of the river park and other public amenities authorized by the Citizens’ Plan make that site very worthy of consideration for its own innovation district – regardless of whether such a district is pursued downtown.
To summarize: Claims 2 and 3 are false because the Citizens’ Plan would actually facilitate and enhance innovation districts not only in the East Village but in Mission Valley. The idea of such districts is too good not to export to other parts of the City. That’s why the initiative seizes the potential in both places.
False Claim 4: “A non-contiguous convention center or downtown stadium are not worth doing.”Perhaps more than any other, this particular claim reveals just how much the critique’s author misunderstands the Citizens’ Plan. Starting with the convention center, he insists that a “non-contiguous facility makes the investment even more risky by eliminating the mega-conventions which need contiguous space.” This is a rhetorical sleight of hand because currently there are no mega-conventions in San Diego – luring them here is the impetus for expanding in the first place – and thus nothing to “eliminate.” What’s worse, the analyses of potential new bookings identify only three and possibly four mega-conventions accommodated by a waterfront expansion. Yet not one of them has given the slightest enforceable assurance that it will break its existing contracts and move to San Diego as soon as a waterfront expansion is built. Waterfront boosters thus suffer from a terminal case of build-it-and-they-will-come syndrome. Basically, they want to use taxpayer money (rather than their own) to build a waterfront expansion on spec.
Meanwhile, the City’s updated analysis from last August shows, once we take into account the legal delays faced by the waterfront expansion, that an off-waterfront expansion would cost less public money and generate a comparable return on investment by hosting more sub-mega-conventions. That’s made possible in large part because two nearby facilities (in contrast to one large one) would have fewer lost booking days due to set-up and tear-down conflicts; there’s not enough room for a full house of exhibitors to be setting up and tearing down at the same time under one roof. Why spend more taxpayer money on a waterfront gamble that will generate no more return on the investment than will a less-expensive off-waterfront expansion?
[T]he Citizens’ Plan’s approach to expanding off the waterfront and allowing a stadium component protects the taxpayers and the waterfront better than any other alternative.
As far as the Citizens’ Plan’s stadium component is concerned, the author’s right that stadiums are bad public investments. That’s precisely why the initiative prohibits the City from spending money on a stadium either as a stand-alone facility or as part of a joint-use facility.
Worries about the “delay” of building a stadium downtown are overblown. On the one hand, the only person who needs to worry about how long it will take to build a downtown stadium is Dean Spanos. If he can live with the timeline, nobody else should be concerned. On the other hand, the delays at Mission Valley will be just as bad if not worse because of the years of litigation that will dog that site if City Hall persists with its taxpayer-subsidized proposal. Comparing apples to apples, Mission Valley will not yield a new stadium any faster than downtown will.
So while it may be true that the economic justification for expanding the convention center or building a new football stadium is not overwhelming, the Citizens’ Plan’s approach to expanding off the waterfront and allowing a stadium component protects the taxpayers and the waterfront better than any other alternative. If they’re worth doing at all, then the best way to pursue them – the one with maximal public protection and benefits – is the way envisioned by the initiative.
Harbor Drive East – Towards Downtown
False Claim 5: “Public access is a red herring.” No, it’s not. The drawing included in the critique shows the contiguous expansion going all the way up to a narrow promenade adjacent to San Diego Bay, with a very small section of “open space” between the convention center and the Hilton Hotel to the south. The author could not be more off the mark when he writes that “the contiguous convention center expansion . . . leaves this gap largely untouched.” The “gap” is not the concern. The concern is the much larger park that currently exists but would be completely covered up by the alternating light-green-dark-green polygonal structure shown in the drawing on the waterside of the building. The park exists there today; it won’t if the contiguous expansion occurs.
“Public access is a red herring.” No, it’s not. … The park exists there today; it won’t if the contiguous expansion occurs.
Another aspect of the contiguous plan that many people forget is that the loading bays will disappear. Look again at the drawing. Do you see where big-rig trucks are going to park while their contents are loaded and unloaded? You don’t because that space has been eliminated. Today there’s a rather large loading bay for this purpose, but the drawing shows exhibit space where the loading bay is. Where will those trucks load and unload if the contiguous expansion occurs? My money says they’ll be parking in the “200-300 foot gap” that the critique’s author isn’t concerned about. With or without the loading bay, however, the public will lose a significant amount of access and open space that it currently has on the waterfront.
Claim 5 is therefore false. Contrary to the author’s insistence, there’s nothing about such losses that would constitute an improvement to coastal access or public space.
False Claim 6: “The Plan impacts urban neighborhoods and deprives them of input.” This claim fails in three ways. First, as explained above, the Citizens’ Plan would encourage innovative revitalization like the Makers Quarter and the IDEA District. It stifles nothing and actually increases the development potential in a way that will improve the chances of innovative revitalization taking hold.
Second, fears about parking impacts are overblown. Unlike projects already authorized downtown, the Citizens’ Plan requires all development that it authorizes there to adopt a legally enforceable “plan to reduce vehicle miles traveled to the [site] that includes incentives for the use of public transit.” What other downtown project has that as a legally enforceable requirement? I cannot think of any.
[T]he Citizens’ Plan contains language to ensure that every member of the public … would be given a meaningful opportunity to provide input about the redevelopment.
Third, the Citizens’ Plan flat-out states – in plain English – that all downtown development it authorizes “shall comply with any and all mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements that would be required under [CEQA] in the same manner and to the same extent as a project that is not exempt from environmental review under [CEQA].” It goes on to require that the City “provide the public with an opportunity to review and comment on any proposed mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements” and “adopt the requirements at a public hearing” convened by the city council.
In short, one doesn’t need a law degree to see that the Citizens’ Plan contains language to ensure that every member of the public – not just those who live in or close to downtown – would be given a meaningful opportunity to provide input about the redevelopment it contemplates to their elected representatives. (In fact, at least as far as the critique’s author is concerned, having a law degree seems not to have been helpful at all. He cites the initiative’s reliance on “Public Resources Code sec. 21178, et seq.,” as a prime example of how the “impacted neighborhoods would . . . be deprived of CEQA input. . . .” It’s hard to fathom why he chose this example because Section 21178 et seq. is one of those statutes that requires compliance with CEQA’s public-input rules. Nothing in Section 21178 or elsewhere in the initiative gets a pass on public input.)
False Claim 7: “Plan backers and their motivations. . . .” There isn’t much of a claim here – just an attempt to impugn peoples’ motives. But the Citizens’ Plan’s backers have been very transparent about their motives, sharing them with public agencies, on the internet, at public meetings, and in the press: Donna Frye wants to see more park space in Mission Valley and wants voters to weigh in on the subject of tourist taxes; John Moores wants to see Mission Valley set aside for higher education; JMI Realty wants to see the waterfront protected for the public and not walled off by a contiguous expansion because it thinks that’s better for the future residents and businesses in East Village; and my clients and I want to see the last 15 years of gridlock at City Hall and the growing infrastructure deficit come to an end.
[T]he critique’s author … is the business partner of a sitting Port of San Diego commissioner. Why does this matter?
Unlike the backers’ transparency, the critique’s author did not think to disclose that he is the business partner of a sitting Port of San Diego commissioner. Why does this matter? It’s the Port that controls the waterfront where the contiguous expansion would take place, it’s the Port that would receive the rents and royalties from trading the public’s open space and coastal access for the expansion, it’s the Port that insisted on asking the Coastal Commission to bless the proposal despite knowing that the tax necessary to finance it might fail in court, and it’s the Port as much as any government agency that cow-tows to the worker-exploiting waterfront hoteliers. Not surprisingly, the author’s business partner voted for the contiguous expansion. All of this was left out of the critique.
It’s fine to raise questions about someone’s motives when they’re relevant to the discussion. In my experience, however, it’s the motives of naysayers who don’t disclose their connections, affiliations, and financial interests that the public should fear most.
False Claim 8: “History is repeated by the Citizens’ Plan in undermining urban neighborhoods.”By this point, anyone reading this response can explain why the critique’s author is wrong when he writes that “[t]he Plan is shockingly oblivious or callous to the challenges and aspirations of the surrounding communities, as well as the potential role the East Village site plays in San Diego’s economic future.” The Citizens’ Plan creates more opportunity in part by facilitating innovation-oriented land uses like those favored by the author, and it gives all San Diegans a strong voice in how the site is developed.
[W]hen our political institutions persistently fail us … it is perfectly reasonable for citizens to take their case to fellow voters.
The problem with this claim is not limited to being false, however. What’s worse is the deeply disturbing suggestion that the Citizens’ Plan’s backers are guilty of “heavy[-]handed tactics” like those employed to defeat the Barrio Logan Community Plan at the ballot box. It’s this sort of inflammatory hyperbole that leaves one to wonder whether the author is truly clueless about the Citizens’ Plan’s backers or intentionally trying to poison the well. Not one of its backers was involved in trying to defeat the Barrio Logan Community Plan, and many of them were staunch supporters.
False Claim 9: “The undemocratic, and sometimes unconstitutional, nature of comprehensive initiatives weighs against the Citizens’ Plan.” Once again, the critique’s author is casting the Citizens’ Plan in a negative light without explaining the actual problem presented. Certainly measures like this initiative should not be a first resort in our democracy. But when our political institutions persistently fail us – and make no mistake, our local politicians and the well-heeled special interests controlling City Hall have been failing us on the issues covered by the initiative for nearly 15 years – it is perfectly reasonable for citizens to take their case to fellow voters.
The only semi-legitimate question the author raises is over the single-subject rule that all initiatives must satisfy. But as with practically every other question he raises in the critique, he does not even attempt to answer it – apparently content just to kick up some dust – so I will.
There is no single-subject problem, period. Courts presume that citizen initiatives are valid until the challenger proves an indisputable violation of the law. The single-subject rule requires nothing more than a set of reasonably germane components that share a common theme. The precedent court decisions invalidating an initiative for violating the single-subject rule are outnumbered by the decisions upholding initiatives against single-subject challenges.
[T]he critique’s author described the downtown land … [as] “the most valuable land in the city – both in monetary value and for its value in shaping the City’s future.” I couldn’t agree more.
Anyone who doubts that sporting events, coastal resources, the convention center, tourism, and the public revenues generated from tourists have nothing in common need look no further than the San Diego Tourism Marketing District. Each year it provides roughly $30 million in financial support for college-football bowl games in Mission Valley, for racing events on and around Mission Bay and San Diego Bay, and for the San Diego Tourism Authority, which handles the convention center’s long-term bookings. TMD’s largesse comes from a 2% tax that hoteliers collect from tourists. Wherever you find one of these things, you need not look too far or long before you’ll find another.
So while I have no doubt that more than one special interest will want to challenge the Citizens’ Plan – they rightly fear that it will substantially weaken their political stranglehold on City Hall – the single-subject argument will get them nowhere fast.
In a blog written a little over two months ago, the critique’s author described the downtown land covered by the Citizens’ Plan as “the largest undeveloped, most generously zoned, and most strategically located land in downtown,” and concluded that it is “the most valuable land in the city – both in monetary value and for its value in shaping the City’s future.” I couldn’t agree more.
That’s why it makes tremendous sense for “the most valuable land in the city” to play a central role in the only initiative in nearly 20 years that has dared to shape the City’s future not for the benefit of a few special interests but rather, first and foremost, for the broader public interest.
At Large
Latest posts by At Large (see all)
- Future of Journalism is in Our Hands - December 13, 2018
- 30 Arrested at Border for Nonviolent Action in Support of Migrant Caravans - December 11, 2018
- The Dorn Effect | Remembering Bob Dorn - December 5, 2018
As a resident and outspoken advocate of Barrio Logan I’m not yet sold, Cory. Hopefully when we meet you’ll bring something us residents can get behind. As is, the plan is detrimental to us if it opens the possibility of a stadium/convention center expansion three blocks from La Logan. And your lack of concern about parking is troubling to us residents. Ever been to Barrio Logan when the Padres have a big crowd or during Comic-Con?
A very comprehensive defense of the Citizens Initiative.
With Fred Maas now on board I am wondering if he does not have a grand plan for relocating the MTS bus terminal, which is the key to the whole thing.
Cory says “moving the bus yard requires a revitalization project that will be big enough and provide enough return to its investors that they are willing to absorb the relocation costs.”
That is the kind of talk that will attract more big guns like Fred Maas to the project. Kevin Faulconer needs to be careful not to end up on the wrong side of this.
Mr. Brigg’s insinuation re my motive: He claims I’m a “developer’s attorney and lobbyist” but doesn’t identify one development interest or client of mine in the area at issue (there aren’t any). My “biases” can be quickly discerned from my publication UrbDeZine.com as well as my previous articles in SD Free Press. In contrast, Briggs is doing JMI’s / John Moore’s bidding, with whom he has partnered to bring the stadium and convention center expansion next to JMI’s property. Now the Spanoses have joined this effort, hiring former Chairman of the Centre City Development Corporation Fred Maas, interpreted to be the Charger push for a downtown stadium. Clearly, Mr. Briggs has aligned with the big money.
Briggs says I made “false claims,” which I address in part as follows:
#1: The JMI – Briggs Plan disregards urban neighborhoods: He denies that his plan is “oblivious to urban neighborhoods”: The fact is that the 77 page plan, which would zone a large area of land as “Downtown Convention and Entertainment Overlay Zone,” goes on ad nauseam about beaches and rivers and tourists and all the things important to the comfortable people of the beaches and suburbs. It says nothing about the needs of the urban neighborhoods most impacted by it. Should the residents of urban neighborhoods trust another initiative drafted by an alliance of a downtown billionaire developer and beach residents?
JMI- Briggs Plan increases pollution: Bus yard removal is a common goal but replacing a bus yard with a convention center and stadium will not reduce pollution by any stretch of the imagination.
Economic opportunity is not low wages: Briggs says it will provide greater economic opportunity to East Village and Barrio Logan. The low wage jobs from convention, tourism, stadium concessions, parking attendants, and hotels are not economic opportunity.
##2 & 3: JMI – Briggs Plan is not symbiotic with innovation economic development: Briggs denies that an East Village convention center expansion and stadium will have a negative impact on the growth of the innovation economy there. He says he spoke with downtown stakeholders, which he does not name. The authors of the UT editorial A higher and better use for downtown (http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/2015/nov/25/a-higher-and-better-use-for-downtown/), all significant stakeholders in an innovation vision for East Village, obviously were not among them.
JMI – Briggs Plan limits educational expansion to north of I-8: A Mission Valley UCSD or SDSU expansion is north of I-8, does not extend the benefits of high education or wages to urban neighborhoods.
Stadium / convention center does not help high wage growth: Without any facts or studies, just his opinion, Briggs says that a convention center expansion and stadium in East Village will have a symbiotic effect with a high wage and education cluster growth. Most studies refute this claim. As cited in my article lack of economic benefit of NFL stadiums is well documented (http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21688415-rams-move-los-angeles-does-not-mean-boondoggle-over-sacking-taxpayer). See also this recent Sports Illustrated interview of several economists about stadiums (http://www.si.com/nfl/2016/01/20/st-louis-rams-san-diego-chargers-economics?xid=nl_siextra). The growth around Petco Park is obvious: Bars, luxury high rises, and parking lots. While it’s questionable how much more of that type of growth is sustainable from yet another less-used stadium or convention expansion, carving out a large section of land convention, entertainment, and tourism, is clearly NOT symbiotic with growth of a high wage and education cluster.
#4: JMI- Briggs Plan prohibits the convention center expansion preferred by the industry and uses his own legal threats to sell the plan: Briggs denies that “A non-contiguous convention center or downtown stadium are not worth doing.” Fact: contiguous convention center is the preferred configuration of all in the industry. He also argues waterfront expansion will be delayed by legal challenges. Briggs will most likely be the one bringing those legal challenges. This reveals a particularly odious from of coercion – “do it my way or I’ll sue.”
#5: Waterfront access issue is easily verified: Briggs denies that waterfront access is a red herring: This is easily settled: Look at any rendering of the waterfront expansion. Compare it to Google Earth – decide for yourself. Having spent most of his career living near the beach, Briggs is simply unfamiliar with downtown and “waterfront access” there.
# 6: Briggs denies environmental shortcut while at the same time touting it: Mr. Briggs denies that nearby residents would be deprived of their environmental rights. This claim is contradicted by his statement in earlier in the same rebuttal: “First, it reduces the burdens of compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act not only for the development made possible by the initiative but also for any joint revitalization that combines at least one of the initiative authorized uses with one or more uses already authorized. All such revitalization must still satisfy CEQA’s mitigation measures, which is the part of CEQA that implements the protection of people and their environment, but the other requirements of CEQA will not apply; that, in turn, seriously reduces the risk of project-delaying or -killing injunctions. This, of course, is a reasonable compromise because downtown in general and East Village in particular have already been the subject of considerable environmental analysis.” If this sounds like double speak, you’re probably on to something.
#7: Briggs insinuation of conflict is a dead-end but begs the question about his own motives: Briggs points out that a Port commissioner is my law partner. However, he fails to even venture a guess how a contiguous or non-contiguous convention center expansion benefits me or my port commissioner law partner in any personal way. It doesn’t. This is just an attempt to smear by association. As mentioned, check my previous articles here and UrbDeZine.com for my biases, including articles published well before the JMI – Brigg’s plan came to light, Show San Diego’s Downtown Scores on 12 Point ‘Vibrant Downtown Strategies’ Test (http://sandiego.urbdezine.com/2014/03/07/how-san-diegos-downtown-scores-on-12-point-vibrant-downtown-strategies-test/ – see #7) and Convention Center expansion too damaging to coastal access? (http://sandiego.urbdezine.com/2013/09/27/convention-center-expansion-too-damaging-to-coastal-access/) – the latter article showing my own initial reservations about a contiguous expansion. Moreover, as noted in the article, I’m not convinced any expansion is justified with a nationwide glut of convention space and the San Diego’s secondary market status. I’m even more opposed to an NFL stadium, as can be seen from my article Five Reasons Losing an NFL Football Team is Good for a City (http://sandiegofreepress.org/2015/02/five-reasons-losing-an-nfl-football-team-is-good-for-a-city/). In contrast, Mr. Briggs has partnered with billionaire John Moores. The profit to Moores is clear: It puts the convention center and a potential stadium right next to his property. It’s less clear what direct benefit Mr. Briggs receives. On the one hand, he sues to prevent a TOT tax increase. On the other hand, he is co-author of a plan that raises the TOT tax. One of his arguments in favor of his plan is that he won’t sue to stop or delay it. Maybe his sole objective is to acquire some of the environmental concessions of the plan – however, his lack of understanding of the needs of urban neighborhoods smacks of suburban paternalism.
Bill:
Your (over)reaction is further evidence that you’re wrong. Personal attacks are lame, even in the eyes of your supporters. Desde La Logan disagrees on an aspect, which he follows up by agreeing to meet. That’s professional and productive, even if we ultimately have to agree to disagree. Poo-pooing people for things like where they live is about as infantile as it gets. Those who would benefit from your substantive, meritorious comments lose out when you act like a spoiled kid not getting his way in the sandbox. The tantrum masks the merits.
What you and others keep ignoring — when you’re not being immature– is that the Citizens’ Plan is a compromise. It admittedly lacks the perfection of the constitution, but it has well over 70k citizens supporting it for ballot consideration so far. That tiny group thinks it is worth debating on the merits. They know it is not EVERY citizen’s initiative, they know that not everyone will love it. But they see enough merit to give it a shot. (FWIW: most of them don’t live at the beach.)
That was by design. As I explained to someone else this morning, the CP reflects a conscious effort to make sure no single special interest gets everything it wants, but rather to make sure as many groups as possible get a lot more than they would get in the absence of the CP. That’s what it means to compromise.
Now, you can decry compromise in general or this compromise in particular; that approach would be mature (even if possibly mistaken). But like it or not, the CP was made possible — just like some future compromise that you might even support yourself — because people sat down and talked substance instead of calling each other names or scrutinizing their ZIP codes. I’ve had to hold my nose at times, as I’m sure those on the other side of the table had to do with me. But at the end of the day, the compromise benefits a lot of people.
Do I care that someone might profit from it? Damn right I do! There is nothing wrong with helping people to profit from doing the right thing. All of us should be striving for more of that, not less. It’d make our lives easier and our clients’ and the public’s life better. If enough people could figure out how to improve the public’s lot and make a profit, guys like you and me might even end up unemployed.
I assume there won’t be any opposition to that last aspiration.
What personal attacks are you talking about? It’s fair game to point out that the plan you and JMI drafted reflects only the “environmental justice” concerns of the beaches and north of 8 residents. You justify the plan as a “compromise.” Your’s and JMI’s compromise. That’s the point. The directly impacted neighborhoods were not part of the compromise.
“your’s” …?
Bill…. maybe it’s not clear to you but your repeated assertions that Cory’s initiative is the product of a conspiracy between Cory and JMI is a personal attack on the Initiative and on Cory.
Say you are sorry.
(“It’s fair game to point out that the plan you and JMI drafted”…”Your’s and JMI’s compromise.”)
As a total outsider, stupid about the workings of big bubbas downtown, I can still say Briggs and Berry seem brittle defensive, and Adams makes sense.
Bill:
If that had been your only point, you could have made it without all the unnecessary hyperbole, personal attacks, etc. You’d still be wrong, but whatever weight your point had would not have been lost in the noise.
You and JMI authored a ballot inititiative which failed to consider the goals and plans of the neighborhoods it would directly impact. You have used your personal credibility to promote the initiative. You switched from the role of legal representative to advocate of your own beliefs. Pointing out your suburban bias is neither a “personal attack” nor “hyperbole.” You make similar allegations of my bias in your response. There is a long history in this country of urban neighborhoods getting steamrolled for the benefit of monied and suburban interests. Your and JMI’s ballot initiative repeats this history.
The use of the term “suburban bias” is both creative and ridiculous when applied in this context. #Facepalm
The JMI – Briggs ballot initiative creates a “Downtown Convention and Entertainment Overlay Zone” in East Village and at the foot of Sherman Heights, Logan Heights, and Barrio Logan without input from the relevant community groups. It does so for the purpose of facilitating the construction of a convention center expansion, stadium, and ancillary tourism facilities closer to JMI property – greatly increasing footprint of this already dominant low wage job producing downtown sector, at the expense of land that could be used for higher wage and more residential-compatible businesses. Imagine doing this at the gateway to OB without consulting the residents of OB. This is the suburban bias you scoff at – not to even think of consulting urban community groups on a matter that would be unthinkable in the beach or north of 8 neighborhoods.
“consulting”? It’s hardly a mystery what is desired by these so-called “urban community groups” it’s an exclusion to the operation of the fundamental economic principle of supply and demand.
“No complaint… is more common than that of a scarcity of money” Adam Smith.
“JMI Realty wants to see the waterfront protected for the public and not walled off by a contiguous expansion because it thinks that’s better for the future residents and businesses in East Village”
You could be more transparent by admitting that JMI’s Imperial & Park property becomes much more versatile/valuable if a CC annex/stadium is built in East Village. They have a significant financial stake in getting this plan approved.
“and my clients and I want to see the last 15 years of gridlock at City Hall and the growing infrastructure deficit come to an end.”
You realize that you’re the gridlock, right? You can single-handedly end the gridlock by stopping your never ending string of lawsuits that hold up important projects. These stalled projects then hold up other projects, almost all of which would generate much needed tax revenue to fund the infrastructure deficit.
Nobody wins when nothing gets done. Your efforts achieve nothing getting done. As a San Diego citizen, I ask you to please stop advocating on our behalf. You’re an incredible hindrance to the growth of our fine city.
There should be no doubt in anybody’s mind about Cory Briggs representing a set of financial interests….
But it’s really disingenuous to somehow think that he just pulled all those lawsuits out of his ass. The courts have found merit in some (not all) of his representations, namely that the policies and processes pursued by various downtown types were not in the best interest of the public. That hotelier “fee not a tax” attempt to abrogate the will of the electorate comes to mind as an example.
I, too, would like to see growth in our city. Just not the kind of growth the feeds the greedy and says ‘screw you’ to anybody else.
Unlike most of the schemes dreamed up by the downtown hotelier set, the citizens’ initiative will be decided by a vote of the people. And that’s whole lot better than decisions made in a penthouse.
You’re absolutely correct that courts have found merit in some of his actions. But how often does that merit go to the heart of the project in question? More often than not, he finds a technicality to use as the basis for bringing everything to grinding halt.
Think about it – he stopped the CC expansion because we didn’t get to vote on the increased tax on hotel guests. And now he supports a vote for an increased tax on hotel guests. He doesn’t care about the vote; he cares about stopping a contiguous expansion. And he used the legal technicality as a vehicle to get his way. I guarantee he wouldn’t have sued to stop the “fee not a tax” scheme if it had supported a JMI-friendly CC annex in EV.
Here’s a better example: do you think he’s really concerned about terrorist threats at the proposed Navy Broadway Complex? C’mon. He’s just pulling out every legal trick in his book to stop that project. And with California’s litigation-friendly set of laws (especially CEQA), a smart attorney can almost always find something wrong with huge development project.
I’m not saying the developers are all saints. They’re trying to make as much money as they can (just like the rest of us). But Briggs absolutely represents one (or more) of them. He’s not a public-interest attorney like he’d like us to think. He’s just another player in the land grab for downtown.
Nonsense Cory’s efforts, if successful, will take tens of millions of dollars generated by tourism to the city each year out of the hands of a few, mostly out of state, corporate interests and put those dollars under the control of SD City Hall and the voters.
The only people who don’t see that as progress are most likely those tied to those aforementioned corporate interests.
Another way to look at it would be: Cory’s already successful efforts have prevented hundreds of millions of dollars generated by tourism to be used to expand the convention center, a vital piece of one of San Diego’s most important industries.
The only people who see that as progress are most likely those tied to the corporate interests who would benefit from expanding the CC in EV instead.
Calling it a “Citizens Plan” is a bit disingenuous – The citizens will neither own the result nor be free from the impacts. If the owners of the Chargers can’t build their own stadium in San Diego, its about time they sold the team to someone who will. Otherwise, this is all an exercise in futility while waiting for the LA option to kick in…
Psst. Here’s a dirty little secret. The Chargers are calling their latest push for a stadium a ‘Citizen’s Plan,’ a deliberately ambiguous move, IMO. As far as I can tell, it is unrelated to the Citizens Plan discussed in this article.
Like the current stadium in Mission Valley The new stadium will be owned by the city…. why shouldn’t voters contribute to it?
Has anyone thought how Chargers fans will reach the STADIUM downtown (it’s in the works, folks)? Airlifts for the billionaires. The average sucker will be fuming in parking lots named I-5 and 163 and 94, listening to the game on AM or streaming it on smartphones. t
Barrio Logan? Citizens Plan? The big bubbas are seeing Miami Beach. And Briggs is one of those.
Bob:
The Citizens’ Plan explicitly requires mitigation for traffic and parking issues AND a plan to increase the use of public transit — which under CEQA would require the impacts to be reduced to a level of insignificance. To my knowledge, there isn’t a single approved downtown project that includes that second component, and a few relatively small projects will never absorb the cost to mitigate their traffic impacts, much less take on existing problems. What’s more, there is no political will to impose that requirement on forthcoming projects; until the attitudes of the city council and mayor radically change — which isn’t on any realistic horizon — they’re not going to actually put an enforceable mitigation measure to increase public transit on any developer.
At this point, there is only one realistic proposal that would create the forum to address the problems that you, Bill, and Brent are LEGITIMATELY talking about. The CP gives people who care about these problems the chance, the platform, to actually get them fixed, and it will be on the November 2016 ballot.
So the real question is this: Are people going to spend their time and money trying to defeat it — which is their absolute right to do — or are people going to engage in a dialogue so that all of us can take full advantage of the opportunity it will provide to improve the lives of people living in communities like Barrio Logan? If you are seriously interested in talking substance, give me a call. (The offer applies to you too, Bill.)
Cory, Thank you for extending that olive branch. I’m certainly willing to speak with you and I believe you mean well. I wish we could have been included in the discussion before it got this far. The rezoning of this huge tract of land in SE East Village for “convention and entertainment” looks to be an intractable part of the ballot initiative. That is the rub. This is directly at odds with the Community Plan, which has as goals for this area:
6.5-G-3 Foster redevelopment of Southeast with an urban mix of new residents and a variety of housing types, employees, artists, and conventioneers, while preserving light industrial and commercial service functions that serve downtown.
6.5-G-4 Facilitate development of a Neighborhood Center that provides a focus to the residential portion of the sub-district, with parkway connections to East Village Green.
6.5-G-5 Promote fine-grained development through building articulation, bulk, and scale requirements.
The existing growth of academic, innovation business, and residential growth in the area is compatible with these planning goals as well as the neighboring community plans. Particularly exciting is the prospect of a UCSD or other major university campus venturing south of 8 into East Village, sparking a high wage job cluster benefiting our neglected / abused urban neighborhoods. (Expansion of UCSD or SDSU, as facilitated by the ballot initiative, is not the same.) Another area need is affordable housing. The ballot initiative’s “convention and entertainment” zoning expansion robs land from these goals for more low wage tourism jobs and block-buster tourism and entertainment development to benefit JMI at the expense of community goals and needs.
*corrected parenthetical comment: (Expansion of UCSD or SDSU in Mission Valley, as facilitated by the ballot initiative, is not the same.)
I’d attend a meeting if David Alvarez and Bill Adams did.
Bob:
You should definitely chat with David Alvarez. He has already endorsed the Citizens’ Plan.
And Brent, too. And Murtaza. I don’t carry much of a brief.
If the plan brings a stadium three blocks from Barrio Logan then I don’t see myself supporting. I’d see myself jump on Rocinante, grab my lance and battle quixotically against the windmill of this initiative. But if I can be assured that no stadium will be built there then I’d put Rocinante back in her stable, place my lance in a safe spot for future use, and then go back to loving my Dulcinea.
Unfortunately, downtown planning has failed to provide community benefits in terms of good quality jobs and prevention of gentrification/displacement. This is a problem that was engendered by downtown-centric redevelopment subsidies, and despite objections by community & labor groups, insitutionalized by the 2007 Centre City Development Corporation’s planning documents spearheaded by then President Nancy Graham.
I hope that both sides will concur with me that the current streak of socially-blind urban planning in downtown should end.
Absolutely, Murtaza. And you are a light in the darkness on these issues. Thank you for your courageous (often lone) voice on the Civic Board on these issues. We need good paying jobs, affordable housing, and a healthy environment in the urban neighborhoods. We need to stop planning and subsidies that benefit primarily the downtown’s elite property owners, e.g., hoteliers and retail property owners who only spin-off low wage jobs. It requires a concerted effort and good leadership on multiple fronts. Education and high wage jobs instead of more convention and stadium subsidization is a good start. Then let’s work on preventing gentrification and providing affordable housing.
P.S., no sequence intended by my use of the word “then.” These efforts should proceed simultaneously.
Mr. Briggs’ article opens with outright lies–that he’s being criticized by a developers’ lobbyist–and wages an argumentative war of attrition long on convoluted logic and peppered with snide personal attacks on Mr. Adams. “Say you are sorry?” Please. I side with reason and impartiality: Mr. Adams’ point of view.
My biggest issue is the strings attached. Why all the caveats?
Why wouldn’t you propose a ballot initiative that simply eliminates the hotelier-owned TMD tax and raises the TOT to levels similar to other big cities? The people get to vote on it, the city gets the money instead of the hotels, and the initiative doesn’t reek of corporate influence. Best of all, it’s a simple majority needed to win because the tax isn’t being raised for a specific purpose.
Like! (I agree)
It’s clear you haven’t the language of the CI or if you did, you did not understand it. The solution as you suggest would simply shift the collection point from the hotel front desk to city hall. The Hoteliers would support politicians who would return the favor by giving the dollars back to the hoteliers under the rubric of promoting tourism. The Brigg’s CI puts levels of control and oversight on the use of those hotel tax dollars putting some kind of accountability on the funds.
D. Berry, Lots of people trust City Hall more than they trust the hoteliers. Think: Doug Manchester, the Evans family, C. Arnholt Smith…
And… if you want to sell this monster-strange Citizens Plan you ought to be more respectful of the people you’re arguing with, ‘cuz. You sound a bit like a nasty professor or two I used to know.
You should take your own advice B. Dorn. I’m not trying to sell anything. I don’t have a dog in the hunt. The lightly veiled personal attacks against Mr. Briggs are what I find objectionable, particularly so because they reflect ignorance about the underlying Initiative.
D. Berry – I read it, and I understand it. But thank you for making the thinly veiled suggestion that I’m lazy and stupid. I’m suggesting exactly what you say I am – shift the collection point from private parties to the government. Correct me if I’m wrong, but that’s who’s supposed to collect taxes right?
Cory makes such a big deal about the hoteliers making their own rules…and now he’s literally making his own rules. And when those rules clearly support JMI’s interests, you’d be pretty ignorant not to think Cory was doing JMI’s bidding. That doesn’t make him a bad person, but it is what it is, and voters should understand that angle before voting on it.
You are projecting. I suggested you had not read it because your comments reflected(and still do an ignorance about what Cory was doing.
You continue in this vein with your latest comment. Cory is not making up his own rules. The C.I. is a suggestion for an alternative to the status quo… from a citizen. You are free to do the same. But since I never heard of you before your little tirade here, my conclusion is you just like to snipe at others. Be well.
He is making his own rules. He’s literally making rules that the people will vote on and City Hall will have to abide by if the CI passes. That wasn’t a figurative statement.
Speaking of projecting…because you haven’t heard from me before, my criticisms of the CI doesn’t mean I’m just here because like to snipe at others. I’m sorry if I hurt your (or anyone else’s) feelings, but I’m just voicing my skepticism of Cory’s plan. Are you only allowed to post on the San Diego Free Press’ message boards if you agree with the author?
Mark:
You may have read it, but I think you missed something: The Citizens’ Plan does shift the collection to the government, to whom — and this is key — it also assigns responsibility for its appropriation and disbursement. Right now the hoteliers collect the money, send it to the city, and the city sends it back to the hoteliers’ star chamber to spend as they choose. The CP ends that and does what, if I understand you correctly, you think should be done.
As for the “bidding” aspersions, let me suggest this definition of “compromise” to you: presenting a proposal to voters that accomplishes 80-90% of what 80-90% of the stakeholders and general public would like to see accomplished. If proposing a widely beneficial compromise makes me someone’s shill in your eyes, then I’m happy to roll up my sleeve so I can be branded as such. But it’s hard to take the name-calling seriously when I have been fully transparent with the language and the money behind it, and most importantly am putting it in front of the voters where you and everyone else who dislikes it will get to do your best to persuade them to vote against it. My run-ins with shills usually doesn’t happen at the ballot box. (I see that happen more frequently by people who don’t use their full and/or correct names when making accusations.)
Okay, let’s get past the passive aggressive “sniping” (as Mr. Berry says). You’re right, I don’t use my full name. If that diminishes my credibility, so be it. I have no idea who reads or posts on these sites, and I have no desire to have people know who I am. I have a wife and two daughters, and there’s no telling who’s going to take offense my opinions. I lead a private life and would prefer to keep it that way (as I’m sure is the same with many of your clients). You’re a much braver person than me to put yourself in the public line of scrutiny. I can honestly appreciate that.
I’m skeptical of your plan, and I’ll try to be as clear as I can as to why. I would honestly love it if you could explain away my doubts. Here’s how I arrived at my skepticism:
– You’re a champion of preserving the coastline. I think that’s well documented. You’ve fought most coastal development projects I’ve read about in San Diego.
– You say you oppose any waterfront expansion of the CC because it infringes on the public’s right to enjoyment of the waterfront. While I disagree, you’re being consistent with your hard line approach to waterfront development.
– When a hotel was recently proposed to be built on the Fifth Ave Landing site, you didn’t object to it. From what I can see from the renderings, this hotel would infringe on the public’s use of the waterfront more than the proposed CC expansion. The public right of way would actually pass underneath the hotel. http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/2016/jan/15/bayfront-convention-hotel-hostel-proposed/
– I was surprised at your non-opposition to this waterfront hotel, so I thought maybe his opposition to the expanded CC does not have to do with waterfront access. I tried to think of another reason.
– I have read that JMI strongly prefers a CC annex in EV because it puts their Imperial & Park property in squarely between the two CC sites. They would build a massive convention hotel if the EV annex were built.
– The proposed Fifth Ave Landing hotel would effectively squash a plan to expand the CC on the water, which would force an EV annex (if anything).
I concluded that your stated reason for blocking a waterfront expansion of the CC to protect the waterfront is just a public rallying cry while this whole thing is actually driven by JMI’s desire to increase the value of its EV property. Please correct me if I’m wrong, but that’s the conclusion one anonymous voting taxpayer has drawn.
I like a lot of what the CI has to offer, but I’m skeptical. That’s all. As you said, it’s a compromise. So maybe doing JMI a favor was necessary to get things moving. I don’t know.
Sorry for the excessively long post…
Well put Mark. And on top of all that, the most impacted communities were completely left out of this “compromise” in which Briggs and JMI completely override the local community plan and existing zoning. The fact that it will be a public vote doesn’t change it. Community plans shouldn’t be put to a vote of the entire city. Briggs and JMI are doing the same thing that Sanders/Faulconer did to Barrio Logan last year. Do urban communities not count like beach and suburban communities? I have heard that Cory is now doing damage control in the Barrios but it isn’t flying.
Write your own initiative. What’s stopping you?
Money.
Bill:
The “damage control” you mention involved me meeting with about half a dozen residents to explain what the Citizens’ Plan does and does not do — something that, from what I got out of the discussion, apparently nobody else has taken the time to do. When it was all over, they asked me whether I’d be willing to come speak to the broader community during the evening when most people aren’t at work.
Personally, I consider people making up their minds before they have all the information to be very damaging. If having a conversation with people so that they can make a fully informed decision is damage control, then I’m definitely guilty as charged.
Mark:
Anonymity is lame when the objections don’t stick to the merits. I have nothing against anonymous objectors who stick to the merits, which your last post does.
Preserving the coast: You’re correct.
No waterfront CC expansion: You’re again correct about my view and my clients’ view of the world.
Fifth Avenue Landing: It’s a terrible idea, but (1) they already have the right to build it (nobody fought to stop it when it was approved long ago, and it’s too late to challenge in court); and (2) FAL, unlike the CC boosters, have at least tried to make some access-oriented improvements, which suggests to me that they’d be open to further changes to maximize public access (again unlike the CC boosters) and which is why my comment ended with optimism about hearing from them. If my clients and I can improve on the proposal that they’re already allowed to build, that’s a good thing.
JMI: This one’s a bit longer to explain, so stick with me for a bit.
The waterfront expansion will NEVER happen; it is illegal under the Coastal Act, and the city will never get the necessary two-thirds vote to finance it. However, there is a persuasive argument that an expansion of the CC, even if across the street at Tailgate Park, will provide a reasonable increase in the TOT collected by the city. Since that money will go to things like infrastructure, libraries, parks, lifeguards, etc., the public will benefit from the additional revenues and thus an expansion there is worth pursuing if the price is right.
Currently what the CC needs more than additional exhibition space is additional hotel rooms. That’s not a JMI-created narrative; it comes from the CC board and from the city. For example, as the U-T reported last year, the biggest problem that Comic-Con faced was finding enough rooms at a price its attendees could afford. In other words, there’s a shortage of hotel rooms that is driving up the price. If supply goes up, the price will go down. Thus, people in the convention business are asking for more hotel rooms in order to accommodate more conventions and thus more tourists.
(This is also why the argument in favor of a waterfront expansion to accommodate the mega-conventions is ill-conceived. If there aren’t enough hotel rooms to accommodate convention-goers now, what makes anyone think there will be enough rooms when even MORE people are visiting the CC?)
JMI will indeed benefit from the increased demand for hotel rooms, but the question is whether it will benefit enough to pay for the hotel itself. That answer is, for the most part, “no.” The most-obvious proof is the general absence of new-hotel construction downtown over the last decade because the market is too soft in the eyes of lenders and investors. Under these circumstances, either the cost of capital is too high or the capital does simply not exist.
If the CC expands on the waterfront, in which case there will still be the same number of hotels, the city won’t be able to accommodate all the guests due to the relative shortage of rooms. If JMI builds its hotel, which the CC and city officials would love to see, it will need a public subsidy so great that the city would need to dip into current revenues to help create the rooms necessary to make the waterfront expansion pay off.
If, on the other hand, the expansion occurs next to the proposed JMI hotel, that dynamic looks so much better to private lenders and investors that the cost of capital would go down and the need for a subsidy from current revenues would disappear. As a matter of public and financial policy, why would taxpayers want to dip into their pockets today to subsidize a hotel when the need for such a subsidy disappears if the expansion is done on Tailgate Park rather than on the waterfront?
(Anyone who doubts this economic argument can see it in practice. The Marriott on the waterfront just expanded, with private money, to include roughly 250k square foot of convention and meeting space. The Hilton will add 500 rooms, with private money, if there’s a waterfront expansion but not without it. The proximity and effective monopoly on CC attendees who stay on the waterfront to sleep, eat, and shop — and tend not to cross Harbor Drive — is a boon to the waterfront hotels. I’m not saying nobody crosses the street. I am saying that the proof of sufficient private financing due to proximity-to-expansion and guest-capture considerations is in the pudding, and it’s right there for everyone to see. And THAT is why the hotels fighting the Tailgate Park expansion the most are those few waterfront hotels. They’re literally leading the charge, in court and at city hall, to protect their monopoly.)
So, if an expansion of the CC will generate the same return on investment for the city regardless of where it’s done (that is proven by the city’s own CSL study last summer once all the assumptions are evened out so we’re comparing apples to apples), and if we need more hotel rooms to accommodate the additional convention attendees (regardless of where the expansion takes place), why would any reasonable taxpayer/voter want the expansion to occur in a location that will require the city to dip into existing revenues to subsidize the new hotel that the city’s going to need? Why would taxpayers/voters want to receive a smaller return on their investment?
All those people who hate subsidies — for example, the overwhelming majority of city voters who oppose a subsidy for a new Chargers stadium — should be equally adamant that we not expand the convention center in such a way that we trigger the need to dip into existing revenues in order to make our “investment” on the new waterfront facility pay off. A subsidy like that will erase whatever gains we get from the expansion.
The politicians’ insistence on a waterfront expansion has the effect — once all the economic realities are fully understood — of picking winners and losers in the marketplace. The waterfront expansion not only benefits the waterfront hotels and their restaurants and shops (to the detriment of every other hotel, restaurant, and shop downtown), but it would literally come at taxpayer expense because of the need to pull money out of today’s coffers to help JMI build the hotel that is essential for the success of the waterfront expansion. Most people believe the government should not be in the business of picking winners and losers.
Notice, by the way, that I have yet to mention protecting the environment in explaining why the JMI approach is better for the city. One need not be a tree-hugger to appreciate why “protecting the waterfront” is a good thing. In this case, protecting the waterfront also protects the public’s pocketbook.
FAL quashing a waterfront expansion: So you can now understand why, if faced with a proposed hotel that has already received approvals that would trigger a legal challenge, and if the time for the challenge is over, someone who wants to protect taxpayers from ridiculous subsidies is unwilling to shit all over that proposal because, as you said, it “would effectively squash a plan to expand the CC on the water.” That outcome, in turn, protects the city’s coffers.
At the end of the day, I could care less that JMI wants to maximize the return on its investment. As long as that’s not done on the backs of today’s taxpayers, my clients and I are going to do everything in our power to help JMI. In this case, what’s good for JMI is JUST AS GOOD IF NOT BETTER for the taxpayers.
The need for favors: That is the nature of compromise. JMI is helping my taxpayer-advocate clients protect the public fisc while also helping my coastal-access clients protect the waterfront. And though they’re not my clients, there are hundreds of thousands of voters who favor reducing taxpayer risk and enhancing the public’s access to the coast even if the business interests that facilitate those good public results will be making a profit along the way.
So in exchange for doing something that benefits JMI — and unlike the city’s past and likely forthcoming schemes — the Citizens’ Plan effectively keeps the city from dipping into existing revenues to pull off a boondoggle. And that, of course, is in addition to all the other things in the CP that you recognize are worthy goals.
As a skeptical taxpayer, isn’t it reasonable to think that JMI doesn’t actually need a subsidy (and thus wouldn’t further drain taxpayers) to build their convention hotel, but rather they’re saying that for leverage purposes? The NFL plays a similar game. Give us money to build a stadium or else we’re going to leave. Build the annex on the other side of my property or else I’m going to build condos instead or demand taxpayer money if you really want that hotel. Doesn’t that sound like the rich pleading poverty? And if that’s the case, wouldn’t an EV CC annex be picking winners, too?
Thank you for taking the time to explain all this. It’s very helpful.
The Briggs Initiative does not provide a subsidy for anyone, including JMI. It places contol of all funds into the hands of the elected officials in city hall.
Mark:
JMI is not saying “give us money or we’ll leave.” JMI is saying: if you build the CC expansion on Tailgate Park, you WON’T have to dig into existing revenues. How exactly is that bad?
I guess I’m asking why the city would have to dig into existing revenues to build their hotel if the expansion were on the waterfront?
Mark:
It is the same reason why the hotels on the waterfront can build if the expansion is on the waterfront: the closer the hotel is to the new facility, the more private money you will get. If JMI is next to the new facility, it will get more private money and won’t need the city.
I’m sure no one’s reading these comments anymore, but I saw this article in the UT today about the booming hotel building industry:
http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/2016/feb/20/san-diego-in-midst-of-hotel-building-boom/
Makes me doubt the idea that JMI actually NEEDS any taxpayer money to build a hotel, regardless of where any CC expansion goes. They’ll be fine either way (just that much richer if a CC annex goes to EV). Therefore, I don’t think a taxpayer subsidy for JMI should be a real concern of a waterfront expansion.
The answer to the question about a simple measure raising the TOT (going to the general fund so it only needs 51%) is that the hoteliers will oppose it. And fund the opposition. As they did with Proposition J in 2004, which failed. So the Citizens Plan offers them something in return for their not opposing it.
That’s interesting. I didn’t know about Prop J (only been in San Diego since 2008). That’s too bad that big money can so easily influence voters. I felt bad that the new Barrio Logan community plan was voted down. Seemed like that would’ve done so much good for that community, and all someone had to do was mention that the Navy might leave (yeah right) and voters panicked. It’s too easy, and very unfortunate sometimes.
Mark:
The hoteliers’ greed is worse than Doug makes it sound. In June 2004, there was a proposed TOT hike that would have set aside money for the hoteliers’ purposes. Because it was a special tax, they needed a two-thirds vote. Even with zero serious opposition — that is, with practically everyone in town on board — they still fill short of the mark by a few points.
So in November 2004 the city put forward a TOT hike without the hoteliers’ earmarks, thus needing only a simple majority vote, and the hoteliers then actively opposed it. With their opposition, the measure didn’t even reach the 50% mark.
That is why the hoteliers and politicians came up with the 2% Tourism Marketing District tax in 2007 and called it a “self-assessment” instead of a tax. With that label, they were able to rationalize not putting the matter to the voters and instead only let the big hotels vote on it. Surprise, surprise! The hoteliers approved it, and now they are legally authorized to “self-assess” but put that “self-assessment” on their hotel guests’ bills as a line item in the “tax” section of the bill.
That charade is why my clients are suing to have the TMD tax declared illegal for lack of a public vote. And because they will fight any TOT increase that does not benefit them, the Citizens’ Plan had to include something substantial that the hoteliers want. My clients were okay with given the hoteliers most of what they want as long as the hoteliers weren’t just given a handout. I don’t think anyone believes the hoteliers are given a handout by the CP.
Cory: given that Tom Sudbury is the major stakeholder in Mission Valley and John Moores is the major stakeholder in downtown’s East Village is it not inevitable that anybody who supports development in either location will be seen as a shill for its major stakeholder? That is the curse of San Diego.
Unfortunately these two men have been granted far too much “entitlements” in these two locations by the City Council over the years. You would be accused of being a shill for Sudbury if your Plan supported Mission Valley.
Your “Citizens Plan” may have their name on it but who can they trust? Will the City Council give it all away to the highest bidder as they have always done in the past? That is precisely why we are cursed with so many powerful stakeholders in San Diego. How did Manchester or any of them become so wealthy?
It will all come down to TRUST. San Diegans have been lied to so many times. The easiest answer is always NO. Tom Shepherd will earn his consultancy fee on this one. Unless he can persuade the people to trust you and the City Council the answer will be NO.
This will be your hardest case. You face the toughest jury of all – a skeptical public.
I’m from Texas and a regular attendee of Comic-Con, and each year after going to the con I stay several extra days to enjoy the beach and the fantastic city of San Diego. This issue is obviously for San Diegans and about San Diego, so an outsider’s perspective might seem rude. But for those citizens who are undecided and want to get a full inquiry into the competing needs, I thought I’d offer the perspective of a frequent con-goer.
I don’t know enough about the amount of conventions being turned away from San Diego due to lack of facilities, but the “convention expansion” described in this proposal sounds dreadful from the perspective of a Comic-Con attendee. It sounds like we’re going to shoulder some of the financial burden for keeping the Chargers in San Diego while also killing the chance to expand the convention center and make Comic-Con more enjoyable. Your city is incredible, I don’t mind chipping in a few percentage points to help out the city as awhole and if keeping the Chargers is deemed the top priority, hey, more power to you. But raising the hotel tax 5% while also effectively killing a proper expansion of the convention center? That feels unfair. I have a strong preference to keep the convention in San Diego, and I’d normally be hugely resistant to moving the con, but given the way this is playing out, if the “convadium” proposal succeeds, I might hope it does indeed move.
I fully concede that a “convadium” could be a brilliant use of resources for the city for the majority of the year; I have no clue whatsoever about the economic benefit of hosting two simultaneous conventions with the two separate facilities – perhaps that is indeed a wise investment. And I also concede that keeping an NFL team in a city is more than just economics. It’s an extremely important communal resource – and if the competing interests between the Chargers and Comic-Con turn into an unfortunate zero-sum game, I completely understand citizens saying, if it’s the team or the con, and one has to go, I respect keeping the team at all costs. I also know that Comic-Con is only one event and that it’s a unique animal, and the needs of other conventions might be completely different.
But what I do know about is experiencing Comic-Con as an attendee. And as an outsider who sorta pays attention to this stuff, it does seem that at least your mayor values Comic-Con’s needs and impact on the city. As an attendee, I have to say that the notion that a “convadium” could actually serve the needs of Comic-Con is even more fantastical and imaginary than the superhero characters celebrated at the convention. The distance makes the proposed facility a total non-starter. Even if Comic-Con attempted to use such a facility, as a convention-goer, I would never set foot in it. The time commitment it would take to get to and from the new facility would be far too great. During peak convention hours, it would take at least two hours out of your schedule to get to and from the new facility. Plus, anything that would be enticing enough to lure con-goers away from the main convention center would, by definition, also bring long lines to get in. So – anyone wanting to shuttle between the two facilities would have to sacrifice almost half of their day just for the logistics of making that choice. Not to mention the exhaustion factor. The convention center is huge, and con-goers who make maximum usage of the facilities are already walking a huge amount of foot-miles every day. The skybridge from the Hiltons over to the shuttle buses to Mission Valley and Petco is already heavily flowing with people. If the idea is for people to navigate between the two facilities, the infrastructure just can’t support it.