The short version of this analysis is you need to pay attention to City Measures E & G, and could reasonably be expected to vote yes on the rest of them.
E & G are about the future of the stadium site in Mission Valley, and the only ones with pro and con groups; the rest of the City ballot items are just housekeeping or consensus agreements on issues. My remarks on those (H-N) will be short and sweet.
How we got here: After years of dicking around about wanting a bigger and better place for the San Diego Chargers to play, team owner Dean Spanos packed up his franchise and left town.
No matter which version of the proposed deals with the football team you might have heard about, they amounted to the same thing, namely that San Diego taxpayers were expected to cough up a sizeable contribution so the playthings of a billionaire would have someplace to strut their stuff.
Stadium advocates tried wrapping up their concepts in a variety of ways. Local billionaires clashed over who could get a better deal (mostly for themselves). But for the majority of San Diego voters, their ideas amounted to lipstick on a pig. Believe me, they polled and surveyed and lobbied and promised, and it was still a no-go.
Now the question becomes: what do we do with a big chunk of publicly owned land in the middle of everything?
In a normal world, our municipal government would have called for proposals, the city’s eggheads and bean counters would have given them the once-over, there would have been hearings with public input, and the people we elected would have done what we’re paying them to do.
However, things don’t work that way in America’s Finest Tourist Plantation. Massa Faulconer went behind closed doors even before the football team was gone and came up with some bells and whistles to gussie up a land grab.
Lookie here! We can have something big and shiny in Mission Valley for nothing!
The topper for what we now call the SoccerCity deal was supposed to be a way forward for expansion of San Diego State University. SDSU’s unofficial reps, also known as the people with money, looked at the fine print and said: “No, thanks.”
The SoccerCity plan people are being asked to vote on doesn’t specifically include a campus extension. Supporters say its text has enough leniency to allow SDSU to build a campus extension. That’s awfully vague for a deal this big.
The folks with the university went out and gathered up support for a different approach, now known as the SDSU West plan. Both groups have spent and will spend millions making their pitch to voters.
The inewsource description of the two proposals is the best short version I’ve found:
The SoccerCity proposal calls for the city to lease the 166-acre SDCCU Stadium site and the 50-acre Chargers Park facility on Murphy Canyon Road to FS Investors to build a soccer stadium, a river park, housing and retail space. The plan would also set aside up to 30 acres for San Diego State University. Eventually, the development firm could buy 79.9 acres of that leased land.
The SDSU West proposal lets the city sell 132 acres of the stadium land to SDSU. The school would use the land to build a smaller football stadium, as well as housing for students, faculty and the public, and some retail space. The school would also develop a river park on the remaining 34 acres.
If voters approve both measures, the one with the most votes would win.
There are plenty of reasons to be cynical about this matter, and I invite you to read Scott Lewis’ Voice of San Diego article on the machinations leading us up to the measures we’ll be voting in the near future.
Voters in November will now decide whether the SoccerCity plan should go forward, whether the city should have to sell the land to SDSU instead or whether neither of those options is adequate.
This is a story about how that happened. It’s a story of how elites in small rooms can hatch ideas that mobilize thousands of people and dominate local public affairs for years and how other elites can mount an opposition with equal ferocity. It is based on documents, emails, interviews with 24 people in and around the talks between SoccerCity, SDSU and the group of people who rallied on SDSU’s behalf for something more for the university.
Now voters have three choices: opt for SoccerCity, the SDSU West plan, OR reject both.
Both plans for redevelopment currently under consideration will serve to benefit their wealthy backers in some fashion.
The radical/hippie/communist/anarchist in me says “screw them both.”
The pragmatist in me says rejecting both –given our milquetoast leadership in the executive offices at City Hall– means nothing will move forward on this property until after the 2020 elections.
I’d be fine with this, except for the fact that the oligarchist/monopolist/corporatist system doesn’t appear to be in any danger of ending anytime soon. My experiences with the nihilist approach –make sh*t worse so people rise up– is that its advocates are all talk and no action when it comes to the actual work of fomenting change. And somehow things never seem to get worse for our wealthy overlords.
I also think the ‘sugar rush’ the economy is currently experiencing will end sooner than later and, as always happens during our gilded ages, there will be a financial collapse, making it impossible to find funding for whatever gets built there.
What ultimately sways my reasoning is simple: expanding higher education provides the most benefit for the most people. The jobs that come alongside university growth pay more and offer better benefits both off and on campus. It’s also true most local politicos I’m aligned with (and some I’m not) have achieved a consensus favoring SDSU West. Fighting it would be an uphill battle not worth the effort.
So the approach I’m taking towards these projects is I’ll vote for the SDSU West plan. There are other contests more worthy of my focus.
***
Measure E
MISSION VALLEY STADIUM – SOCCER CITY INITIATIVE
Ballot Language:
Shall the City lease Mission Valley stadium property and the San Diego Chargers practice facility on Murphy Canyon Road to a private party for 99 years, with an option to buy some stadium property, consistent with price, terms, and conditions described in the measure; and adopt a specific plan and agreement allowing development of stadium, river park, recreational, residential, office, hotel, retail, and other uses; and amend related land use laws?
Supporting Measure E/Opposing Measure G are entities who’ve spent roughly $5 million through the end of June 2018.
They represent the interests of FS Investors, a La Jolla-based group including retired Qualcomm President Steve Altman, Bridgewater Ventures, LLC, Equity Investor Peter Seidler, Michael Stone (via Ptolemy Capital LLC), and Nick Stone (via MLS SD Pursuit, LLC).
SoccerCity (Yes on E)
Here’s the sales pitch:
When passed, this initiative will transform the site into a world class venue. Complete with a state of the art stadium for a new Major League Soccer team and Aztecs Football, more than 60 acres of parks and the beautification of the San Diego River, an Entertainment District with retail and restaurants, housing & research space, infrastructure improvements, recreation fields for the community and a Soccer Academy to further develop the talent of our local kids.
No on Soccer City (No on E)
Here’s the anti-sales pitch:
The initiative put forth by FS Investors is shrouded in the shiny object of “soccer.” But the details show that everyone loses with this proposal, except the wealthy investors who stand to make hundreds of millions of dollars. The bottom line is that SoccerCity is a bad deal for San Diego and, as an initiative, the plan can’t be changed if it is approved. That’s why we need to vote it down, or else we’ll be stuck with it – no matter how big the issues are now or in the future.
***
Measure G
MISSION VALLEY STADIUM – SDSU WEST INITIATIVE:
Ballot Language:
Shall the City sell Mission Valley stadium property to San Diego State University or any SDSU auxiliary organization, entity, or affiliate, consistent with price, terms, and conditions described in the measure, to allow the California State University Board of Trustees to determine its development, which may include stadium, recreational, educational, residential, office, hotel, retail, and other uses; and if sold, shall the City set aside adjacent land for a river park?
Supporting Measure G/opposing Measure E are: Assorted friends of SDSU, along with H.G. Fenton Company & Sudberry Properties. They’ve spent more than $2.3 million through the end of June 2018.
Although reports for the current period aren’t yet filed, it’s reasonable to assume this group has been given a financial boost thanks to endorsements from organized labor.
Yes on G / Grow SDSU
Here’s the sales pitch:
At no cost to city taxpayers, SDSU West would transform the existing stadium site into a walkable campus environment with housing, classrooms, a research park, hotels, retail and a stadium, featuring 90 acres of public open space and a river park.
No on G
I initially couldn’t find the website listed on the ballot opposition argument. It is now functioning.
Here’s (part of) the anti-sales pitch:
A full independent analysis of the competing Mission Valley ballot measures shows that Measure G is over $200 Million dollars worse for San Diego taxpayers, and the gap is even wider on a county-wide basis.
***
The Rest of the City Measures.
As I said at the top of this article, this is all stuff not to get worked up about. I’ll say “sure” to all these.
Measure H
There are no organizations actively supporting or opposing this measure.
This represents a compromise between various factions on how to open up the school board to new faces in the future.
CHARTER AMENDMENT ENACTING TERM LIMITS FOR SCHOOL BOARD MEMBERS.
Ballot Language:
Shall City Charter section 66 be amended to limit a member of the San Diego Unified School District Board of Education from serving more than three four- year terms, beginning in 2020, and not count prior or current terms for purposes of the term limit for those School Board members who hold office on the date of the Municipal General Election in 2020?
Measure J
There are no organizations actively supporting or opposing this measure.
People thought we’d already done this, but it turns out the ordinance as written was unenforceable/vague/confusing. So this is housekeeping.
CHARTER AMENDMENT REGARDING MANDATORY DISCLOSURE OF BUSINESS INTERESTS.
Ballot Language:
Shall the City Charter be amended to: require, for certain contracts, disclosure of the names and identities of all natural persons owning more than 10% of an entity contracting with the City or receiving more than 10% of the contracted amount; require the disclosures to be provided to the Council for contracts requiring Council approval; and exempt public agencies and publicly traded companies from the requirements?
Measure K
There are no organizations actively supporting or opposing this measure.
Let’s call this a fix for the Lorie Zapf loophole, the one allowing her to run for an extra term thanks to redistricting.
CHARTER AMENDMENT LIMITING CITY COUNCILMEMBERS TO SERVING TWO FOUR-YEAR TERMS.
Ballot Language:
Shall City Charter section 12(c) be amended to remove language regarding a “particular district” and clarify that a person cannot serve on the City Council after serving two four-year terms, with a partial term of more than two years continuing to count as a full term for purposes of the term limit provision?
Measure L
There are no organizations actively supporting or opposing this measure.
This gets the City Council off the hook for having to vote on pay raises for themselves. I think this is a good idea, and tend to scoff at those who worked up at the ‘outrageous’ pay of elected officials.
The rest of this amendment is just more housekeeping.
CHARTER AMENDMENTS REGARDING ETHICS AND COMPENSATION FOR ELECTED CITY OFFICERS:
Ballot Language:
Shall the Charter be amended to: (1) restrict benefits for elected City officers; (2) restrict lobbying and campaign activities of elected City officers; and (3) remove the requirement that Councilmembers set their salaries and those of the Mayor and City Attorney, providing instead that their salaries be set as percentages of the salary set by the State of California for Superior Court judges?
Measure M
There are no organizations actively supporting or opposing this measure.
More housekeeping.
CHARTER AMENDMENT REGARDING REAPPOINTMENT OF AUDIT COMMITTEE PUBLIC MEMBERS.
Ballot Language:
Shall City Charter section 39.1 be amended to allow the City Council to waive a requirement that the Council consider at least two applicants for appointment to a position as a public member of the Audit Committee when the Council wishes to reappoint a sitting public member who is eligible for another term?
Measure N
There are no organizations actively supporting or opposing this measure.
Yes.
REINSTATEMENT OF INDUSTRIAL DISABILITY RETIREMENT BENEFIT FOR POLICE OFFICERS.
Ballot Language:
Shall the San Diego Municipal Code be amended to reinstate an industrial disability retirement benefit for members of the San Diego Police Officers Association who suffer a violent attack at work resulting in great bodily harm, with the benefit provided when a resulting mental or nervous disorder renders the member incapable of performing normal and customary duties?
Other articles in this series:
-
- San Diego County Supervisor D5 | Michelle Gomez vs Jim Desmond: It’s Time for a Change
- San Diego County Supervisor D4 | Nathan Fletcher vs. Bonnie Dumanis: A Critical Contest
- San Diego’s City Council District 2 | Republican Zapf vs Democrat Dr. Jen: Is a Change Gonna Come?
- Climate Change, Clogged Drains, and Lorie Zapf
- San Diego City Council District 4 | Cole vs. Montgomery: How to Make Black Lives Matter?
- City Council District 6: How Can Hough Hew His Way Around An Incumbent’s Advantage?
- San Diego’s City Council District 8 | Martinez vs Moreno: It’s Complicated
- Are You Willing to Look Past Gavin Newsom’s Smile and Carl DeMaio’s Frown in the General Election?
- The Sins of Lorie Zapf – Part 1
- The Sins of Councilwoman Lorie Zapf – Part 2
- San Diego County Supervisor D5 | Michelle Gomez vs Jim Desmond: It’s Time for a Change
The San Diego Free Press Progressive Voter Guide, to be published in early October will include these and many other candidates. To see all our coverage for the 2018 elections, go here.
Did you enjoy this article? Subscribe to “The Starting Line” and get an email every time a new article in this series is posted!
I read the Daily Fishwrap(s) so you don’t have to… Catch “the Starting Line” Monday thru Friday right here at San Diego Free Press (dot) org. Send your hate mail and ideas to DougPorter@SanDiegoFreePress.Org Check us out on Facebook and Twitter.
Anna Daniels says
Sara Libby points out that “decisions about a significant city asset and the future of a central San Diego neighborhood are being made almost entirely by wealthy white men.” She was referring to decisions about Mission Valley Stadium site but it applies to every big ticket public give away that I can think of and it has to stop. Land use policies and subsequent development must follow the needs and vision of the public rather than the other way around.
Matt Ortiz says
Sara Libby’s article was complete nonsense. Bringing in the wealthy white man argument is comedy as well. How about we compare both plans on their merits. Public land use decisions shouldnt be made thru the ballot box, but we can all blame SoccerCity for putting up in this position. SDSU normally purchases land directly from the City of San Diego thru the normal City Charter stating public agencies get first needs met as you call for in your comments. However SDSU was not afforded this opportunity so this is why we have SDSU West, which is essentially the same scenario as them purchasing from the city in a normal, transparent process. SDSU WEST has my Vote. YES ON G.
Dean says
Vote NO on E and G! This matter should always have been open to bids, not greedy developers!
FJL says
Hmmm… One for sure provides a stadium for SDSU football. Soccer will be welcome in it too. More open space and park area. And I believe less traffic to Mission Valley. ‘G’ is a ‘Go’ for me.
Steve Bailey says
Nice job on the stadium proposals. I suspect you’re right, that a “pox on both their houses” approach isn’t productive. As a newcomer to SD, I really appreciate your analysis on these baffling ballot initiatives.
Heywood_Floyd says
The “No on G” site had to change URLs for some reason, became “Fact Check G” ( https://www.factcheckg.com/ ).
I personally don’t want the stadium torn down for more empty luxury condos owned by a Russian guy in London, at the same time I would only be for “G” if SDSU was willing to make a pledge to begin construction of a satellite campus as soon as “G” passes. SoccerCity sounds like another version of that failed mall/museum/tourism place somebody built in Tijuana back in the ’90s – a lot of hype, then the San Diego soccer team gets squashed a few times by whichever team is biggest in international soccer and the crowds vanish. Or we never put up a team and it’s Croatia vs. Mexico or Brazil vs. Uruguay every weekend and we get to deal with the worst of world football fandom without the chance of making a name for ourselves.
So yes, I’m not a fan of either prop.
Chris says
Well you DO know that if we get an MLS team they will be playing other MLS teams, not an international team. Off topic I know but since you brought it up…..
Heywood_Floyd says
No I did not, because I don’t follow the sport closely. In that case, then the third-time resurrected San Diego Sockers will be crushed by some other US team a few times and the crowds will vanish.
Bonnie Bekken says
Savvy, honest analysis that boils down to nix Sucker City opportunists, support SDSU educational growth opportunities with park and rec for all San Diego. Not bad for an anarchist;-)
Tim Medved says
NO on BOTH! This is a false choice. All of YOU, the public, OWN this property. Why sell it when you can lease the land? Would you rather be the landlord or the tenant?
Doug, please rethink your view. If SDSU (my alma mater) has the best proposal for LEASING and developing the land, let’s hear it. Also remember educational institutions (like religious institutions) are tax exempt so that should be considered when granting a lease.
We don’t need a small number of misinformed voters giving away our public property. This is exactly what both measures are betting on.
Doug Porter says
And what do you think will happen if both measures are rejected? Do you really think anybody in the mayor’s office will do a lease deal? Do you think anybody on the City Council with the possible exception of Georgette would walk away from selling us out to developers?
If you do, I have some discount toll coupons for the Coronado Bridge I’d like to sell you…
We’re screwed, regardless. THAT’s my point. At least University use creates better paying than retail jobs.
There are too many other battles to be fought just now…unless you’ve got a spare $5 million or so and want to put together a ballot proposal?
Tim Medved says
So you opt for voting now for the lesser of two evils in fear of a worse future possibility?
Sorry, that’s not me. I’m not afraid.
If the Mayor and City Council could sell to developers as you say, why didn’t they do it already??
So I will vote NO on BOTH rather than SELL OUT to either proposal.
michael-leonard says
there’s another important item to note: if both proposals are defeated, how many YEARS will it take for the city to organize a design competition? the stadium will sit empty, decomposing, and costing MILLIONS until then.
i too am most in favor of a complete public design challenge, but with the downside of time, that might not be a good choice.
of the two we now have, the SDSU is absolutely the better.
Bonnie Bekken says
Maybe because the mayor does not want to APPEAR to be a shill? Maybe because closing his door while meeting with developers is his idea of open and transparent government? If you have nothing at stake, you have no reason to be afraid. I believe ordinary San Diegans, myself included, have much at stake: Our future, especially the future for our kids and their kids to be educated participants in their community. Thanks for your activism.
Bjorn Steller says
The issue is actually already very clear in the short ballot text of E and G.
You vote “Yes on E” if you like to “adopt a specific plan and agreement allowing development of stadium, river park, recreational, residential, office, hotel, retail, and other uses;” keyword: specific
You vote “No on G” if you do not want to give the Mission Valley stadium property to “any SDSU auxiliary organization, entity, or affiliate,” whoever that might be to do whenever something “which may include stadium, recreational, educational, residential, office, hotel, retail, and other uses;” and you vote “NO on G” if you really do not want “the City set aside adjacent land for a river park?” keywords: any, may, the City set aside
Even the short ballot text is giving away all the short-comings of G, and the complete text has even more redactions than you can possibly imagine. Don’t be fooled by the name SDSU West. This measure G has really nothing to do with SDSU’s development in the future.
Bonnie says
Ha! Nice try, “Bjorn.” How about, to further clarify, you vote “yes” on E if you enjoy seeing out of town financial interests and developers take your city land for peanut money, then make big money by reselling it, leaving you and everyone else in town stuck with paying for basic infrastructure. The mayor may have bought your sucker city teaser, but you have been revealed. Yes on G.
InventingJoy says
I am a strong supporter of higher education. Ordinarily,I would vote to extend university property but NOT this time! SDSU has proven to me that they will not serve the community. I went to use their library during late hours when only the especially privileged were allowed. They didn’t let me in. I quote: “We have to have rules to keep the homeless out of the SDSU library”. I don’t happen to be homeless. Maybe I look homeless or maybe I don’t.I don’t know their criteria for their judgement of me. Point being, any library which refuses to allow anyone in the community from bettering themselves with access to higher levels of education/library doesn’t deserve my vote or the trust of the community. When they say, which they did, that they plan to “serve the community” which they said, have lost my trust a long time ago when they stated their exclusionary policy and criteria thereof NOT. I must admit I am glad to do a tiny thing to get back,that’s justice, but better to expose the elitist policies. SDSU has lost my support for a lifetime. I don’t think I’m the only one. I could change my mind with an apology and written change in their elitist policy. SDSU, you need to educate your educators!