I wouldn't exactly call that a "screed". And hardly "sniveling." And you pay way too much attention to the UT. But nevertheless, I don't give a darn about the convention center being built - waterfronts are stupid places to put huge wall-like buildings; just go to the foot of 5th in the Gaslamp and ask whether you'd like to be able to see water instead of an ugly, usually-empty building. What I DO care about is that a tradesman is deprived the choice of joining a union or not - why should one have to join a union to bid on a government subsidized project. One shouldn't, of course, but in our left-sliding county, that's where we find ourselves.

Posted by Ron | reply to this comment
July 6, 2007 8:10 am

I predict that Gaylord is just posturing and blowing smoke, and they haven't truly backed out, just a PR move to gain public sympathy in their fight against paying prevailing wage or using union labor. Hopefully most people are aware that the "union issue" is just hot air, as lots of union construction and prevailing wage construction happens in this town, with developers making out OK. This is a public-subsidy project on public land, and they should pay prevailing wages or use union labor. Period.

Posted by MtGoat | reply to this comment
July 6, 2007 8:16 am

Seems to me like these guys didn't think they were getting a big enough handout, so they came up with a reason to leave. It's always easier to blame someone else than simply tell the truth -- they wanted more taxpayer money. And if I'm not mistaken, since it's Port land they'd be developing, aren't they required to pay prevailing wages anyway? How does the project cost increast $50-75M when you're forced to pay living wage no matter who you use? Sounds fishy to me. Actually, it sounds like there were a bunch of non-union contractors who got to Gaylord and convinced them not to support the unionized labor. Pigs at the trough, all of 'em.

Posted by 2cent Jack | reply to this comment
July 6, 2007 9:18 am

The San Diego Convention Center Phase I and II were built 100 percent with public subsidies at a cost far more than $300 million. Therefore, why is it unreasonable for public participation to cover 30 percent of the project's $1 billion cost? And since when does public funding rationalize forced union membership? The deal between the Port and Gaylord was not based on sole-sourcing the construction contract to labor unions which obviously blew the budget. Gaylord did agree to prevailing wages and union service jobs, but discriminating against non-union members should never be allowed on publicly funded projects. Are you a libertarian Scott? Because you seem to be objecting to any public subsidy. I suspect it will be a matter of days before you break that principle and cheer on some other public subsidy or unfunded government mandate.

Posted by Hugh D | reply to this comment
July 6, 2007 9:24 am

Very well stated. The unions were only asking union wages for all workers, not membership and the deal killer for Gaylord was a promise to hire only local labor. Considering the HUGE negative effects upon the lives of Chula Vista residents-gridlocked traffic, 2,000 more low waged workers to house, air pollution, a possible shortage of energy and water we don't need any business that is unwilling to help mitigate its negative affects on our lives. You make a good point as to whether the area could possibly support anything this large at this point in time.

Posted by Theresa | reply to this comment
July 6, 2007 9:31 am

So sad that a rich corporation isnt going to get $300 million dollars in taxpayer dollars. I will be weeping all night. They may just be posturing so the port and cv will fork over even more dough. This project died because the city of Chula Vista has no leadership at the top NOT because of the unions.

Posted by Tragic | reply to this comment
July 6, 2007 10:17 am

Wait a minute! I agree that government projects or private projects that use public monies should not create low-paying jobs that leave workers and their families dependent on welfare or other government programs or without adeqate health insurance, but government should NOT be supporting or encouraging unionized jobs either. Unions are not a government program. Why should government be doing the job of the union bosses? Isnt that what dues are for? Union leaders now expect politicians to do their job for them. Get off you butts and organize works the old fashioned way...by working hard for your members and giving them reasons to join, not simply because politicos or environmentalists blackmailed the builders. Unions do protect workers and fight for better conditions, but they shouldn't be able to hold up projects that would pay prevailing wages and other protections for workers but that do not require union membership cards.

Posted by Joe6Pack | reply to this comment
July 6, 2007 11:37 am

• Users may post more than one comment, but should not pose as multiple users. Multiple posts from the same IP address but with a different user name on each will be reviewed to determine whether abuse has occurred.
• Posts with overly personal attacks or unsubstantiated allegations may be edited or deleted.
• Please be patient with the posts -- there may be a delay before they appear on the site -- and make sure to enter the code in the "image verification" box.