Preserving Carlsbad’s Future the Right Way
Citizen activism triumphed over corporate greed last week when Carlsbad voters defeated Measure A. If approved it would have transformed the quiet beauty of one of the city’s three pristine lagoons into the home of a Los Angeles-style shopping center/tourist magnet.
The 53 percent voter turnout surpassed SD County’s 45 percent in the 2014 gubernatorial election. The Citizens for North County activist group opposing the measure raised $115,000 in donations to produce 20,362 NO votes. That’s less than $6 per voter.
The corporate bully, Caruso Affiliated, invested $11 million on its lagoon mall project. The 18,806 YES votes cost Rick Caruso nearly $600 per voter. The billionaire developer failed to generate enough votes to equal the 20,000 signatures he gathered on last summer’s deceptive initiative campaign. It seems my wife and I were just two of many others who were duped into signing the initiative by Caruso’s promise of a vote of the people.
The victory over a corporate bully in Carlsbad is not only a lesson in democracy, it reveals how low cost grassroots campaigns using social media can level the playing field. While Caruso had the big money, the little people had the home field advantage.
A few weeks before the February 23 vote, Caruso boasted of the support of, “all the people who really matter.” At the top of his list were Mayor Matt Hall and council members Mark Packard and Michael Schumacher. They became high profile spokespersons for the project, none having to face voters this year. The other two Council members, Keith Blackburn and Lorraine Wood, who will be up for re-election, have maintained low profiles after having voted to approve the project on August 25.
Jimmy Ukegawa, owner of the Strawberry Fields farm, and Lisa Rodman, CEO and only paid staff member of the Agua Hedionda Lagoon Foundation, were featured in Caruso-produced TV ads running daily, almost hourly it seemed, in the final weeks before the special election. Union leaders for the fire and police departments joined those poster children on TV. What these individuals had in common was their political and financial interests in the developer’s success.
The victory over a corporate bully in Carlsbad is not only a lesson in democracy, it reveals how low cost grassroots campaigns using social media can level the playing field.
The three Carlsbad residents who signed the Agua Hedionda 85/15 Specific Plan Initiative “TO BE SUBMITTED DIRECTLY TO THE VOTERS;” a volunteer member of the Agua Hedionda Lagoon Foundation, a former Chamber of Commerce CEO, and a former city planner, seemed to be missing in action on Measure A.
By contrast, high profile supporters of the “No on A” campaign were activist volunteers, environmentalists, surfers, and former city staff members with specialized knowledge of the project’s impact. None were paid for their work on the campaign.
Caruso’s shopping mall competitor, Westfield, was not at all involved in the referendum campaign, but stepped up to contribute $75,000 to the Citizens for North County, a pittance compared to the flow from Caruso’s deep pockets.
While unpaid “No on A” volunteers politely canvassed the city, Caruso’s paid operatives went door to door promoting the project. Retirement homes and assisted care centers complained of unwelcome electioneering of their residents.
After focus groups paying up to $200 to participants told them Caruso’s glossy mailers were more irritating than informative, the developer turned to a flood of television ads in the weeks leading up to the election.
The developer opened an information tent at the Strawberry Fields with paid staff to answer questions. Watercolor paintings were posted to whet the appetites for the developer’s promises. The 397-page description of his 85/15 plan was not available.
Meanwhile, Citizens for North County set up portable pop-up tents for volunteers to answer questions.
In the final days leading up to the election mysterious things began to happen to yard signs. The large, printed corporate style signs for “Yes on A” began to exhibit identical slashes of red paint across them. But it wasn’t actually paint. Just another printed sign with the defacement. Some were partially torn. None masked the message. The “Yes on A” remained readable. Smaller, untouched “No on A” signs stood next to them.
The corporate-style signs began to be accompanied by printed hand-drawn ones, mimicking those of “No on A,” carrying a new slogan: “Save our Lagoon, Yes on A.” The developer’s dirty tricks? I report, you decide.
Citizens for North County used Facebook, Twitter and YouTube to get their message out since there was very little mainstream media coverage of the special election. UT San Diego, the county’s only print daily newspaper, endorsed the project.
The only regular media attention opposing Caruso came from the publication of my twelve blog postings, which were driven by my anger and guilt over being duped: TheRiehlWorld2.blogspot.com at OsideNews.com, the San Diego Free Press, and the weekly San Diego Reader.
While the little people triumphed this time, it appears Carlsbad has not seen the last of Rick Caruso. Here’s what he said in his concession letter to supporters.
“I urge the residents of Carlsbad who supported me on Measure A to join me in finding ways to come together. I promise that we will be in touch very soon.”
Will he return to the lagoon with a revised plan? Or does he have an oceanfront resort, replacing our seaside smokestack in mind? Or both? Stay tuned.
Latest posts by Richard Riehl (see all)
- Carlsbad’s Bogus State of the City Video - August 16, 2017
- Will District Elections Loosen the Grip of Carlsbad’s Old Guard? - August 7, 2017
- Carlsbad Mayor Matt Hall’s Profile in Cronyism: Formalizing Appointments to City Committees - June 14, 2017
While it was a sweet victory, it wasn’t exactly a “crush.
Well, it was actually a crush: developer spent over $11M in mostly deceitful and non-informative advertising, while the “NO” initiative spent a bit over $100K. Not to mention the bully attitude of the Caruso team towards Carlsbad, trying to protect the “small business” owner Jimmy Ukegawa – that left such a bad taste in my mouth I will steer clear of his business for a while. When you look at all the people/groups that supported “Yes on A” you can quickly see how everyone of them was to benefit financially one way or another and didn’t care at all what happens to Carlsbad if you go and build another mall here: firefighter/police unions said the new tax revenue will mean more money for them, Ukegawa would get a bigger parcel for his strawberry business, mayor, city council members and Agua Hedionda lagoon foundation got “donations” from Caruso recently, etc. Now it’s time for the voters to clean up the city council and the mayor’s office, no need for such sell-outs.
“Union leaders for the fire and police departments joined those poster children on TV.” What did these guys have to gain from the shopping center?
The mayor and city council negotiate with the fire and police unions over pay and benefits for their members. Since the council voted unanimously to approve the project without a public vote and led the charge in promoting it, I believe union leaders would want to be their pals. Also, it’s hard to imagine their support of the project shows they think public safety and fire response time will not be challenged by the location and size of the mall.
Opinion based on facts; City Council made decisions that a guilty party would make if they were attempting to hide something. Council did and did not do the following;
1.)Did not act or respond on behalf of hundreds of citizens who stated they were lied to in the original initiative signature gathering to ‘save’ lagoon, strawberry fields, vote, etc.
2.) Denied those same citizens a right to vote when asked.
3.) Lied to voters, Asking citizens on Caruso mailers and on TV to even surrender their right to vote by ‘not signing the referendum’. Claiming outside interests were involved, even though Westfield nor any other non-local had not contributed a red cent at that time.
4.) When the right to vote on this major development was finally ‘earned’ (i don’t know how else to put it) through a referendum, Council elected to rush the election. This developer serving action gave the opposition the least amount of time to prepare against an obscenely well funded campaign that has been preparing for four years.
5.) Spent more than half a million dollars of taxpayer money to finance the cost of the election, rather than pay one tenth that amount by having it in June. The 105 day difference is $5,238 per day. This egocentric and reckless behavior seems criminal to me. What would you like to have seen done with our money in our fair city?
Every opportunity the Council had to show voters they are humble, are not all knowing Gods, and value truth, they chose instead to put the priority and wishes of the developer first and on the fastest available track. Does any of this seem like conspicuous behavior? Strange as it is, i feel it is both guilty and omnipotent.
I waited many days after the initial reports of the victory to read Richard Riehl on this crushing defeat of billionaire politics. Fascinating to read about the tactics: about how money can simply assert and insert a repetitive YES into mainstream thought, about the bold inversion of the basic notion of preservation into the loss of a natural site, about the solicitation of the elderly who might just like the attention they haven’t been getting lately… EVIL shit, this. Thank you, Richard Riehl. You and the coalition you were part of made a bit of history. Up with people.
I was never for it, but to be honest the developer spent the money over an entire campaign. When it came down to the special election I saw the same grass roots tacky campaign on both sides.
Then writer makes it sound like one side spent $11M and the other side spent $100K in the same 75 day period, which is not true.
This writer needs to be called out for his bias and misrepresentation and show a time schedule of when the money went out. or else he needs to be canned.
Like I said I was never for it, but I am for truth in journalism in this dirty filthy age of politics. I ma sick of the vitriol and want to throw up every day.
If you reread my article you will see I did not make the claim you said I did. I did not compare 75-day expenditures. I compared the total amounts spent on promoting and opposing the project, which began with Caruso’s initiative campaign and ended on election day. Citizens for North County only began spending money, all donations, after the referendum was launched following August 25. Sticking to the facts is the hallmark of ethics in journalism, which has always been my guide. Letter writers who don’t follow the facts are not held to the same standard.
Lagoon now has a chance of staying in one piece – next stop, city hall, Pack It Up, Matt Hall!!!