voiceofsandiego.org: Slop... A Libertarian? Me?

First, no, I'm not a Libertarian. I'm all for spending money. Yay for spending money.

What makes me nervous is spending money without actually having any of it. And so, I don't like governments borrowing money -- hefty chunks of it, actually -- without putting that decision in front of the public for a vote.

The San Diego Convention Center, Hugh D. was built with borrowed money after a public vote affirming the deal. Fifty-nine percent of voters in 1983 approved of the loan to build the center. Voters also approved its expansion, in 1998.

Plus, the Convention Center is now publicly owned and operated.

Gaylord was going to get its subsidy without a public vote. And Gaylord is a private company answerable primarily, as it made clear in its letter Friday, to its shareholders.

What frustrates me is to watch governments go more and more into debt to fund these kinds of things, strapping the younger generation with decades of repayment burdens.

You want to build a convention center with public funds? Fine. Go for it. Build an amusement park on top of it. I don't really care. But you should have to ask taxpayers to ante up to do it.

If you want to give a private company a subsidy to build a convention center in Chula Vista, then the cities that make up the port district should all be asked to raise their sales or property tax. If residents say yes, we want this new convention center so badly, we're willing to pay a little bit extra for it, then fine, go for it.

But too often, in this city, in this state, our leaders dream about big projects and then they figure out ways to both hide and delay the costs of those projects.

We want to give our public employees the best benefits possible, but we don't want to raise taxes to do it. We want to build sports stadiums, and libraries, and host political conventions but we never want to talk about how much they cost.

All I'm asking is that when we think about these things, we be honest with residents about how much they will cost and what kind of sacrifices we'll need to make them happen.

And if somehow it's more rational just to borrow money without raising anything additional to pay for it, governments should have to at least hold an election and persuade the people to take on debt payments that will last longer than the terms in office of the elected officials who think they're such good things.

Secondly, I never held that public money should "rationalize forced union membership." I'd be happy with some kind of commitment from the builders to, in exchange for this sacrifice from local taxpayers, hire local workers at living wages.

And finally, as to the contention that "in a matter of days" I'll be cheering on another public subsidy despite the principles I laid out above, I'm not sure what to say. I suppose I'd support a publicly subsidized house for myself. It would have to have a pool though. I think, with a pool, I could attract enough out-of-town guests to generate the kind of tourist dollars that would make it a worthy public investment.

-- SCOTT LEWIS

If your neighborhood is like downtown where CCDC, EDC and CONVIS count tourist dollars as if they were generated solely by the agency reporting their economic impact, your local convenience store can also claim all your tourist dollars for themselves because after all they are convenient. Then your homeowner's association can claim your visitors' tourist dollars because they keep your green space so beautiful. So you see, you are a really important economic driver for the region just like CCDC, EDC and CONVIS and you deserve at least a $300,000 annual salary with perks and a bonus.

Posted by Ian Trowbridge | reply to this comment
July 6, 2007 9:09 pm

Amen, brother Scott!

Posted by Dannyboy | reply to this comment
July 6, 2007 10:03 pm

While Scott is not a Libertarian, he can spot folly easily enough. We Libertarians opposed the convention center on the basis of FUNDING. Ideally the centers should have been private ventures, but regardless should have been funded by those who benefited most -- the hotels. That being said, if any of the boondoggles merited public funding (they didn't), the convention center comes closest to providing real benefits to the community. Conventioneers from across the nation come to SD and drop their dough, benefiting our economy. Not so with sports stadiums, or with the Gaylord project. The CV deal would simply suffle money around the county, to the immense benefit of Gaylord, but nobody else. If this bloated-cost project made financial sense, Gaylord would fund it. They didn't, precisely because it didn't.

Posted by Richard Rider | reply to this comment
July 6, 2007 10:23 pm

The unions demand "prevailing wages." Scott favors a "living wage" clause. They are not the same. "Prevailing wage" is a false term -- in essence, it means the HIGHEST wage paid in an area. The highest wages are the prevailing wages already paid on labor union government contracts (a bit of circular reasoning going on here). A California term, it requires even higher pay than the inflated federal "Davis-Bacon" wage requirements. "Living wage" is currently bandied about as a $12-$13 figure. That would hardly be a difficult cost for government construction contracts, as most NONunion construction jobs pay more than this amount now! It would be about HALF the rate that "prevailing wage" constracts require. Furthermore, nonunion construction costs less because of the lack of make-work union rules that slow construction and jack up the cost of building.

Posted by Richard Rider | reply to this comment
July 6, 2007 10:23 pm

You think there has to be a public vote for every time there's a bond issuance? Why exactly? It's not the only important sort of decision a municipality makes. How about when they condemn someone's property? That has to be voted on too? Public debt allows government to create more wealth in the long term. The Gaylord project was projected to create 3500 new jobs, as well as attract 3/4 of a billion in private investment. It'd pay for itself in increased tax revenues in the long term. Why not let the government make that experted calculation? We elect them to figure those things out, so that we don't have to. And when they're wrong, we boot them out. I'm not saying there isn't a place for direct democracy, but for every important decision?

Posted by CP | reply to this comment
July 6, 2007 11:40 pm

There are other factors about this project's demise that many aren't taking into consideration, much of which VoSD helped uncover: The failure of the LLC created to manage the project, in which Gaylord had 10% ownership, was killed. The only Chula Vista staffer involved, Laurie Madigan, was exposed for involving her husband's business partners in the deal. The City Manager, Dave Rowland, who initiated the deal was fired and it took the City a year to hire a replacement. Political leadership was not at the table to facilitate stakeholder negociations. And lastly, but probably most importantly, the EIR port staff and Laurie Madigan produced was insufficient and would never have past muster with the Coastal Commission and Statelands Commission. And labor wasn't smart enough to realize they were being bated and eventually faulted for killing the deal. This deal was done a long time ago!

Posted by maggie | reply to this comment
July 6, 2007 11:58 pm

To CP: Why debt should be voted on by the public: Elected officials are supposed to represent our interests, yes. But they are only in office for a short term. We should vote on debt because we'll have to pay it for sometimes decades after the elected officials who incur it are long gone. Our term limits force them to be interested in the short term, yet our outlook must be long term. Plus, it's California law. State code prohibits public agencies from incurring debt without a vote. Redevelopment agencies, for a reason I would like to understand, are allowed to incur debt without a public vote. But that doesn't mean they should. I fully understand and respect the principle that our representatives should make decisions for us. But bonds shouldn't be something they can just do.

Posted by Scott Lewis | reply to this comment
July 7, 2007 12:39 am

Bonds are de facto tax increases. Politicians support any method of funding special interests where the cost can be passed on to the public over time, and passed on to their successor office holders. Hence we get unfunded public employee pension and health care debt, and pension obligation bonds the public doesn't get to approve. If one thinks that the general electorate should vote on tax increases, then one should favor the public voting on indebtedness. If one OPPOSES the citizens voting on tax increases, well, there's nothing more I can say.

Posted by Richard Rider | reply to this comment
July 7, 2007 1:17 am

Gaylord's departure is an opportunity to develop a working waterfront. How about a container cargo port? Mexico is trying to attract $billions to develop Colonet - Chula Vista and Port should be trying to beat out Mexico/Colonet. Real jobs - not low wage service jobs!

Posted by MtGoat | reply to this comment
July 7, 2007 1:53 am

CP wrties= """Public debt allows government to create more wealth in the long term.""" Are you kidding me???? That is a bunch of baloney-you should be serving bread with that baloney....... while debt can stimulate a lagging economy, if used properly, public debt with no tangible benefits can bankrupt a City/County/State with just as much ease..... take a lok at Orange County in the 90's, take a look at San Diego/CA today- please-stop with that nonsense..... If the public had been given a PUBLIC VOTE for jacking up San Diego City government pensions to millionaire status we would have never be in the financial mess San Diego is today....

Posted by Billy! Bob!! Henry!!! | reply to this comment
July 7, 2007 2:02 am

People are misinformed about the propositions on the ballot and the outcomes of the elections are directly related to money spent promoting yes or no votes. When bond issues arise, the establishment rulers pick a side and the political marketing campaigns kick in gear to persuade the people to vote in their "mainstream" (majority) position -- their paid-for PR message is that their's is the "official" position on the proposition. Bond issues (MM) and tax cuts (Prop 13 in 1978) are highly conflicting -- the former jacks up billions in education facilities expenses and the latter cuts funding education as a freeze on property taxes. Both votes were heavily promoted as the mainstream choice, and both have lasting future impacts. Voting is not the answer when the developers and other private interests pay to make their position the mainstream official position.

Posted by Christopher Hall | reply to this comment
July 7, 2007 7:05 am

Chris, prop MM didn't cost the schools a dime -- it was funded with a property tax INCREASE, over and above government's rapidly growing education spending. But Prop MM was duly passed (unwisely, in my opinion) with a 2/3 vote as per the CA Constitution. So be it. As for Prop 13 gutting education, fire fighting, prison funding -- and apparently causing global warming, more earthquakes and acne -- the fact is that current property tax revenue, EVEN AFTER ADJUSTING FOR INFLATION AND POPULATION GROWTH, are now higher than the then sky-high PRE-Prop 13 revenues. Government is awash in funds -- but almost all of the growth has gone to excessive public employee labor and fringe benefit costs. As the hubby of a retired public school teacher with a juicy pension and fabulous healtcare, I thank you all.

Posted by Richard Rider | reply to this comment
July 7, 2007 8:15 am

Well scott you have certainly stirred one up today... For what its worth, I think all of you are right and all of you are wrong. None of these issues are as black and white as you think they are... you can't substitute common sense and good management for rules. If I had more than 150 words to do it justice i could prove to you that bonding has economic advantages to paying cash for things. As for the whole direct democracy mantra from the libertarians and quasi libertarians... its to inefficient and the masses are fickle. If we had to vote on every bond issue we would never build anything big ever again.

Posted by Basic Civics | reply to this comment
July 7, 2007 9:04 am

wow. such a refreshingly well thought out and executed post. it's nice to see that people are able to reason beyond b.s. partisanship and develop views independent of this nonsense. maybe if the people of san diego stopped defining themselves in such narrow, confined terms they could actually elect leaders that they like and get things done that benefit all of it's citizens, not just those from one party or another. thank you scott lewis! excellent.

Posted by cochon.name | reply to this comment
July 8, 2007 12:25 am

"As for the whole direct democracy mantra from the libertarians and quasi libertarians... its to inefficient and the masses are fickle. If we had to vote on every bond issue we would never build anything big ever again." Come on, elitist, the public... contrary to your belief, does have common sense. Look at all the bond issues that have passed in SD to date. Your last sentence completely destroys your argument. It's the non-public votes on financial issues that have been detrimental to this city.

Posted by Bud | reply to this comment
July 8, 2007 12:55 am

R Rider WRITES """Government is awash in funds -- but almost all of the growth has gone to excessive public employee labor and fringe benefit costs.""".... Thank you for putting that where the rubber meets the road. The gov employee compensation package is so OUT OF HAND it is disgusting. Now this Great State wants to sell off the lottery, public highways and everything else under the sun to private investors for a ONE TIME cash infushion-which will go directly into the pockets of public labor-and the whole state will be paying tolls, fees, and every other nickle and dime scam a private company can come up with for the next 75-100 years.....and for what? Pump up more public employee pay and millionaire pensions... please-lets elect someone with more than half a brain who can see more than 6 months down the road.

Posted by Billy! Bob!! Henry!!! | reply to this comment
July 8, 2007 2:31 am

"Basic Civics" doesn't live up to his chosen moniker. He/she seems oblivious to the real world. We DO vote on just about every bond issue, and just about every bond issue PASSES! This past year alone the state of California almost doubled its bonded indebtedness, voted for by the public. Another equally-huge bond package is already scheduled for the next election. Locally all 5 school district bonds passed by popular vote. Astonishingly, "Civics" wants to give our yahoo politicos carte blanche to unilaterally pass ANY bond measure they wish, without voter approval. Libertarians' defense of mandatory voter approval on bonds is hardly a partisan issue, or radical idea. For those who think otherwise, put a measure on the ballot to rescind the "fickle" voters' inconvenient right to vote on bonds. I'd really ENJOY that campaign!!

Posted by Richard Rider | reply to this comment
July 8, 2007 2:34 am

I'm unfamiliar with CA's public debt law, so if there has to be a public vote with every debt issuance, then of course Chula Vista should provide it in this situation. But someone above complained that public debt cannot be used to generate wealth -- but that absolutely can be true. Government oftentimes issues public bonds to create toll roads and other public works. Those public works can generate more public benefit than their initial costs in the long run. Of course public debt can crush a city if it's too large, but that doesn't mean that ALL public debt is bad. In fact, fee-generating projects (like toll roads) are often exempted from state constitution's debt-restrictions, if those projects are funded specifically from bonds that are to be paid only with income from the usage fees those projects generate.

Posted by CP | reply to this comment
July 8, 2007 9:40 pm

Richard Rider, The legal definitition of prevailing wage is the modal (most commonly paid) wage rate for a given craft in a given county. You are correct that in San Diego and most every county in California this is equal to the union rate. But you are not correct in stating that prevailing wage law mandates the union rate. The union rate is de facto the prevailing wage because the union rate is the most commonly paid. Maybe this fact will finally put to rest the lie being told by anti-union antagonists that non-union contractors peform 85-90% of the work. Like much of what they claim, a simple check of the facts prove them to be liars.

Posted by Horatio Alger | reply to this comment
July 8, 2007 10:28 pm

Horatio may or may not be right about union workers doing a majority of the construction work (I'd like to see the reference confirming this), but "modal" rate is based NOT on what the majority of workers receive, but (as I understand it) rather which SINGLE rate gets the most IDENTICAL pay. link Since all union workers in a given union get the same pay, while nonunion workers get a variety of different wages, then the union wage always constitutes a PLURALITY of the most common SINGLE wage, and hence is always the prevailing wage. Union workers could do only 20% of the work in an area, but since they all get the same pay, that becomes the prevailing wage. This scam was set up long ago by the legislature to make union wages ALWAYS the prevailing wage.

Posted by Richard Rider | reply to this comment
July 8, 2007 10:46 pm

We all make mistakes, and I've certainly made mine over the years. Here I confess to a previously erroneous post I made in this thread. I said that union members get about double San Diego's $12-$13 "living wage." Actually they receive closer to TRIPLE that amount. The $13 city living wage figure includes benefits, so comparing with union wages and benefits we find that a SD area prevailing wage (PW) construction laborer earns from $34.92 to $38.07, including fringe benefits. link A PW/union carpenter gets between $32.31-$42.54 link . My apologies.

Posted by Richard Rider | reply to this comment
July 8, 2007 11:25 pm

Richard Rider, The prevailing wage is set for skilled craftsmen such as carpenters, plumbers, electricians and sheet metal workers. The living wage is set to ensure that unskilled workers receive the bare minimum necessary for a two-earner family to support their families and provide healthcare. Even you would have to admit that the comparison is not fair. It would be like asking what the wage for the chair of The San Diego Tax Fighters is and then comparing that with the living wage. By the way, how much of that income is derived from government grants?

Posted by Horatio Alger | reply to this comment
July 9, 2007 12:03 am

Scott: we live in a representative democracy. Our form of government dictates that our elected officials make these decisions, not the less than informed public. Unfortunately, in California and in San Diego, weak kneed electeds have decided its easier to put the tough questions to a vote rather than be accountable for their own actions. While you cite the convention center as something that succesfully went to a vote, it shouldn't have. Both the original and the expansion were almost doomed because of political cowardice. It's time we recognized our form of government and asked our officials to make good, well-informed decisions on our behalf. When they don't, the public should be informed enough to "fire" them at the next election. That's the way it should work.

Posted by The Real Truth | reply to this comment
July 9, 2007 12:06 am

Gaylord provided better than living wages, but that wasn't good enough for the labor union leaders who want to institute discrimination against non-union workers on public projects. Did you look at the project's financing plan to determine if it satisfied your principled position about the project needing to generate sufficient tax revenue to cover the public subsidy? Based on your principled position that all long term debt should be subject to voter approval, does this hold with long term debt financing for pensions, retiree healthcare, and public improvements for roads, water, and libraries?

Posted by Hugh D | reply to this comment
July 9, 2007 12:11 am

So Scott what you have been able to accomplish with your thoughts on Gaylord is begging the question as to what we are missing in this sorted story. Gaylord would like to appear wounded which is a fabulous PR move as would the Mayor of Chula Vista. However the Mayor wasn't around to make the original deal in the first place so maybe she would like her prints on the next dealand be a hero? Can't put my finger on it. The Mayor could not make this work or did she not desire to? Is there maybe some other developer with more to offer waiting in the wings, maybe one who wouldn't take a cash load of perks. Letting this die with an easy out by accusing the unions was in fact too easy.

Posted by Questions | reply to this comment
July 9, 2007 12:40 am

Horatio, my pay as Chair of the San Diego Tax Fighters is my business. I'm highly skilled at what I do, and am duly compensated. Ah, what the heck -- since you are so curious, here's the deal. Counting my pay plus my fringe benefits, my total compensation as Chair comes to -- zero. I'm a volunteer. Would that I were getting a living wage for this! As for those government grants for SDTF? Not for a legitimate taxpayer organization.

Posted by Richard Rider | reply to this comment
July 9, 2007 3:54 am

Horatio, my point about the "living wage" was based on Scott's statement that he would favor such a clause, but not prevailing wage clauses. As I pointed out before, many think that they are the same. I made clear that they are not. Now, go back to my post above and look at the PW pay for a "construction laborer." That's hardly a skilled position. The pay is RIDICULOUSLY high for such a semiskilled position. Indeed, it is fascinating that such a low-skilled union position earns almost as much as the skilled union positions -- but it is due to union muscle, rather than fairness or common sense.

Posted by Richard Rider | reply to this comment
July 9, 2007 4:06 am

A Libertarian? Me?

Published: Saturday, July 7, 2007 12:01 AM PDT

-- SCOTT LEWIS

Scott Lewis on Politics

The Scott Lewis on Politics blog, abbreviated cleverly as SLOP, is a collection of observations, insights and the occasional scoop on public affairs in San Diego. Please feel free to e-mail Scott at scott.lewis@voiceofsandiego.org.

twitter.com/vosdscott

Listen to voiceofsandiego.org's radio program on AM 600 KOGO: Latest Episode (November 8): Scott Lewis and Michael Zucchet talk about the city's budget

Subscribe to the Podcast Feed

Subscribe to this RSS Feed