voiceofsandiego.org: Slop... Keep Working 10th Ave., Don't Mind the Stadium
an independent nonprofit |
March to 1,000 Members: 991 so far. Contribute today.

Keep Working 10th Ave., Don't Mind the Stadium

Published: Friday, February 1, 2008 4:57 PM PST



For years, one group of people has dreamed that a stadium or hotel or some beautiful structure could find its way onto the valuable land of the Tenth Avenue Marine Terminal at the port.

And for just as long, another group has fervently worked to protect the terminal, its maritime functions and its union jobs.

Now, a developer thinks he can do both -- maybe even put a new Chargers stadium actually aloft somehow above the workers unloading cargo ships below.

Business on bottom, party on the top.

The idea first came up in 1998 but next week, the developer of the once controversial Gregory Canyon landfill says he will notify the port of San Diego that he will be sending a petition to voters in the five cities that make up the port.

Richard Chase, who with his wife Nancy engineered the years-long process to build the landfill in North County, is leading an LLC known as San Diegans for Community Solutions. He thinks that some clever architecture might both protect the jobs at Tenth Avenue and make way for a new convention center expansion, a new stadium or whatever else San Diegans dream of.

This isn't one of the pie-in-the-sky ideas many have floated over the years for the terminal. Chase's group has actually gathered local lobbyists and conducted polling (one of the questions was whether San Diegans supported moving the Chargers to Tenth Avenue).

Scott Maloni, a spokesman for Chase and the group, said voters in the five cities that make up the port district would be asked whether they wanted to amend the port's master plan to pave the way for this supposed smart port.
Could Tenth Avenue keep importing big stuff with a stadium on top?


Part of the language of the initiative, Maloni said, would also ensure that the maritime functions of the port couldn't be changed by whomever is sitting on the port commission at any given time. Rather, he said, the language would require that any decision about whether to make the port an importer exporter or a beautiful chain of resorts would have to go to a vote of the people.

That is, of course, after the door has been opened for this one last proposal.

What would the initiative do exactly? Here's Maloni:

The proposed initiative measure would enact an amendment to the Port Master Plan requiring the participation of marine freight tenants and marine freight labor organizations in the process of developing a Master Plan to preserve existing marine freight activities and to implement modernized marine freight activities by means of cooperative development agreements.  It would also require consultation and participation with all public or private entities affected by any redevelopment plan, including but not limited to existing tenants, labor organizations, environmental groups, community groups, business organizations and visitor or convention groups.


If you made it through that, nice.

Now, to the other side of things.

Port officials aren't so enthusiastic and they have some serious questions. For example, for security reasons, you have to restrict access to working harbors like Tenth Avenue. How would that work if you put a stadium or hotel or convention center on the same space or somehow on top of it? Plus, companies import sometimes huge products that are very tall. Would the double-decked port restrict what could be brought in to the terminal?

Irene McCormack, the port's spokeswoman, called the proposal a "double-decking" of Tenth Avenue. She said port officials met with Chase Thursday.

"The port of San Diego looks at ourselves as one of a string of ports up and down the West Coast. Deep water terminals like this are precious resources. We don't want to jeopardize what we have," she said.

She also said that it was unclear what power an initiative would have. The port commission considers itself trustees of the State Lands Commission. In other words, voters aren't in charge of it, so how can they change what it does?

Maloni said the port's master plan can be changed by initiative.

Chase is no stranger to this sort of effort.

The Gregory Canyon landfill came about from a similar effort. Local officials were reluctant to approve the landfill. So Chase took it to the voters and twice persuaded them to approve of his plan. Tom Shepard, who runs the firm Public Policy Strategies (Maloni's boss), engineered the last electoral success in 2004 in spite of the well-funded opposition of the Pala Band of Mission Indians, which didn't want a landfill near its resort and casino.

-- SCOTT LEWIS




25 Comments so far on this story...

Richard Chase gave every politico and operative in SD a piece of the Gregory Canyon pie. Varying payoffs from .05 to .10 per some measured weight that gets dumped in the landfill, which is why there was the "political" (or monetary) will to keep pushing it through despite all of the roadblocks. How will it work with a stadium, give all the operatives and power brokers a share of ticket sales? This is just part of the decade plan to eliminate high paying union jobs on the working waterfront so they can be replaced with low paying jobs that cater to wealthy tourists and eliminate those pesky train tracks that bother John Moores and Steve Peace so much. They say they'll "make it work" and slowly but surely go back on their word, just like they did with the Ballpark. This is old news

Posted by Dream On | reply to this comment
February 1, 2008 5:37 pm

We have a stadium. Chula Vista probably will be happy to have the Chargers. The Port is a Port; not a playground. If the stadium is not usable, tear it down and build a new one upon the same site. Phooey on hybrids.

Posted by emessess | reply to this comment
February 1, 2008 5:53 pm

I just read the comment by Dream ON. It is time stamped at 7:37 pm today. It is now 5:55pm. How can this be?

Posted by emessess | reply to this comment
February 1, 2008 5:53 pm

About the time stamp on the comments: We've heard from a lot of you about the time stamp being off on the reader comments. We've had a lot of trouble with that and even when we figure it out, it sometimes reverts to old habits. We'll continue to investigate and try to ensure it is always accurate or not included at all. Thanks for your patience.

Posted by Scott Lewis | reply to this comment
February 1, 2008 6:17 pm

I'm not sure your characterization of Chases' 'success' with Gregory Canyon dump is appropriate. The first time in this ballot-box planning issue most of the people had no idea what this was or where it was to be. The second time around the ballot had a horridly confusing ballot question: If you didn't want the dump you were to vote yes. From my standpoint he is one of the absolutely unethical people to work with on any project. Putting a dump on the major water lines for all of San Diego and on a River? He and his ilk sicken me.

Posted by Coast Watcher | reply to this comment
February 1, 2008 6:31 pm

the new york yankees - the most succesful team of any sport(maybe sharing that crown with manchester united and the montreal canadians) is building a new stadium. where? in the stinkhole called the south bronx, right next to the old one. they didn't demand a shiny new stadium on fifth avenue or in central park or on the world trade center site. they settled for the south bronx. what is wrong with this picture? btw, i am anything but a yankees fan, just amazed that a team, whose name has never appeared in the same paragraph as the word "humble", is humble enough not to put that kind of pressure on new york(when they very well could have!) and the chargers, who've never even made it to the super bowl, apparently have. put it in the parking lot and be done with it.

Posted by cochon.name | reply to this comment
February 1, 2008 6:34 pm

This "idea" has no merit and certainly no backers among the Port Commissioners. Perhaps the next idea will be a floating stadium out in the bay followed by a stadium floating through space or perhaps a stadium in the Imperial Valley next to the relocated San Diego airport with a light speed monorail back to San Diego. Funny thoughts in America's Sanctuary City.

Posted by The Roaming Gnome | reply to this comment
February 1, 2008 8:23 pm

Why is it that the Chargers always seem to crop up in so many places with plans for a new stadium? If the Chargers don't like Qualcomm then fix it up. If that's not good enough, then take a hike. This city has more important problems that need immediate attention and a new stadium is certainly not one of them. Further, of all the ideas that have been suggested for a new stadium that would pad the pockets of a choice few, this one really takes the cake. Where do all these clowns come from?

Posted by Rocky | reply to this comment
February 1, 2008 9:43 pm

There wont be a stadium on the waterfront. This initiative has nothing to do with a stadium. wait and see folks.

Posted by Voice got it wrong | reply to this comment
February 1, 2008 10:07 pm

We like the concept. It is close to the trolley and parking structures and will keep the Chargers within the City. Sounds good if the new stadium does not interfer with the working waterfront and Port operation. link // The southern half of the 10th Avenue Marine Terminal is within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Faule Zone and seems to have an active earthquake fault directly below the structure. However, the northern half seems to be free of active faults. As part of the San Diego Community Solutions groups due dilligence, a valid fault investigation should be conducted before the proceed any further.

Posted by La Playa Heritage | reply to this comment
February 2, 2008 6:26 am

The immense amount of time/resources spent on appeasing the Chargers would be better spent on bringing non-service sector jobs to San Diego, fixing the pension mess, fixing schools, speeding cross-border traffic flow -- all things that would improve our economy and quality of life more than a couple weekends of football. We need real Port jobs/businesses more than we need another waterfront facility for low wage service sector jobs.

Posted by MtGoat | reply to this comment
February 2, 2008 10:13 am

Even for San Diego, this is insane. The port ought to be a port and the Chargers ought to stay in the valley in the stadium taxpayers bought them. But since this is San Diego, I have a geographically appropriate idea---put the new airport on top of the stadium/port terminal. A three decker monstrosity of function could make the Guinness book, further I.D. SD developer's mania for psychological science and really clutter up the bay. Just remember to put a cross on top of it all so that the IBSZC (International Brotherhood of Sunbaked Zealot Christians) will make sure that it too gets peddled to the Feds for a dollar like Soledad Mountain was. Then we'll all be happy.

Posted by JR | reply to this comment
February 2, 2008 11:35 am

I agree with #9 Voice got it wrong. This isn't about a stadium on the terminal. It's about a land grab by unknown forces....

Posted by Southof8 | reply to this comment
February 2, 2008 12:05 pm

I concur 100% with the comments of MtGoat (post #11)! We need well-paying, 365-days per year, local economy-building jobs at the port more than a "stadium on stilts". This latest, Terminal 10 stadium "proposal" does not even pass the "common sense" test. I very much enjoy the Chargers, and consider myself a fan of the players (notice I said the "players", not Spanos or Spanos or Fabiani), but this idea is simply a non-starter. Let me state again, for the record, as a City Council candidate, what I WOULD support in San Diego: a multi-purpose venue that would also accommodate an NBA and/or NHL team, along with other events, like SDSU football on Saturdays, circuses, rodeos, motocross, conventions, and other large-scale community or family events. Such a facility could be used hundreds of days per year, not just eight days per year when the Chargers are playing Home games...

Posted by www.robert-lee.org | reply to this comment
February 2, 2008 2:59 pm

BOONDOGGLE ALERT!! BOONDOGGLE ALERT!! BOONDOGGLE ALERT!!

Posted by Dukestir Wilkes | reply to this comment
February 2, 2008 6:45 pm

Hey South of 8 and #9 above -- if you know what's up and ain't 'fraid of getting it wrong, then fess up and tell us what you think is really going on -- in detail.

Posted by Christopher Hall | reply to this comment
February 2, 2008 10:09 pm

Congrats JR, I think you have the real solution! Talk about a dead-on-arrival (DOA) idea! Wonderful of you to include the IBSZC!

Posted by Howiek | reply to this comment
February 3, 2008 3:36 am

La Playa Heritage: How nice of you to mention a fault line. SD is like a city sitting on a pane of shattered glass in its relation to fault lines; both sides of which are active when the time comes. For instance, there used to be a visible outcrop off Front St. in Uptown of light clay soil that shot 20-odd feet straight up, and was displaced from its darker, rock-shot neighboring soil by about 8 feet. I was told once by an SDSU geologist that it was evidence of a quake thought to have occurred around 1490-1500 and would have been as massive as the Alaska quake of '64. I think about that sometimes when I look at all the development sitting on that fill soil at the waterfront. Perhaps the developers should, too. Cheers.

Posted by JR | reply to this comment
February 4, 2008 8:44 am

The "Chase" plan has a number of problems and will be easy for Port officials to shoot down. But the idea to open this beautiful area to public access and public use has merit-- While a double deck may be economicly difficult and cause some security problems--The opening of a portion of this area to the public is far easier---Perhaps with a promanade or pocket park--For those who have not visit the location at sunset and looked back at Pt Loma, you have missed one of the pretties sights our city has to offer--Lets all hope the Chase proposal, opens up more then just debate, lets hope it opens this public asset to public access.

Posted by PeterQ | reply to this comment
February 4, 2008 5:27 pm

PeterQ (Davis?): You are right about the beautiful nighttime view of/across the bay from the area near the 10th Avenue Terminal. Given that, I would heartily support the creation of a park there. But the logistics and sensibility of creating and maintaining a stadium there, imposing on the operations of the shipping terminal and the well-paying jobs there, is indeed a "concept" very easily "[shot] down". The residents of nearby East Village and (especially) Barrio Logan, though, would unquestionably benefit from a park. But again, why would taxpayers vote to pay for a football-only stadium? I'd be comfortably willing to bet, PeterQ, that this proposal just ain't gonna happen, not at that location, in that form...

Posted by www.robert-lee.org | reply to this comment
February 4, 2008 7:05 pm

Robert -Lee: Hey good luck on your campaign-- The Stadium is simply "too big a bite" for the public to swallow--But public access is far easier and frankly I'd bet would prove a "Camel's Nose" in the tent--That is once the public has some access-it will demand more--- Miami-took a manmade propery on their waterfront and made it into a Public place with Convention facilities...St Louis combined a convention center expansion and a stadium-and they did this in between periods of having an NFL team---San Fran. has aballpark on their tidelands. When Balboa Stadium was built, it was the largest publicly finaced stadium in the world--So 100 years ago our city actually had leaders of vision, courage and will power-- My bet is 100 yrs from now this wll be the site of an expaned Convention Center-Stadium and Cruise ship terminal and lots

Posted by Peter Q | reply to this comment
February 6, 2008 10:34 am

Peter Q: I personally admire you, and wish things had turned out differently for you a few years ago, as far as your pursuit of the mayor's office. On this issue, though, you and I will just have to agree to disagree. I can see an expansion of the Convention Center in the direction of the 10th Avenue terminal. I can envision a new, state-of-the-art cruise ship terminal there. But a football-only stadium, as this group configures it, mingled in and amongst marine operations -- nope. As for your wishes about my candidacy -- thanks! But I haven't seen your contribution come through yet -- lol!!!

Posted by www.robert-lee.org | reply to this comment
February 7, 2008 12:38 pm

Peter Q: Would you consider running for mayor again? We need an alternate choice.

Posted by Steve K | reply to this comment
February 8, 2008 4:57 pm

Ignoring the political schemes noted by Dream On, I agree with the latter part of #1. Seattle manages to mix tourism with fishing and shipping industries. But WE chased out the tuna fleet and the good jobs it provided. Then we built a New England Whaling Village-themed shopping mall to cater to tourists, all the while letting shipping dollars flow to Long Beach and points North. Shipping is a clean industry, just like tourism..and it provides more living-wage jobs. (Seaport Village retail clerks, and green-card hotel housekeeping jobs are hardly the basis for a strong local economy.) San Diego could be the trade hub through which ALL PACIFIC RIM goods flow to a consumer base stretching from Mazatlan to the Artic Circle..and we could still reap the tourist dollars provided by our climate and our destinations like the Zoo and SeaWorld.

Posted by RHino | reply to this comment
February 15, 2008 12:32 pm

link for contra perspective

Posted by morlock | reply to this comment
May 23, 2008 12:04 am


Reader feedback
  • 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.
Post a comment
Name:
Email:
Comments:
Current Word Count: Verification Code
6da46ce

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.


Listen to voiceofsandiego.org's radio program on AM 600 KOGO: Latest Episode (October 18): Andrew Donohue and Scott Lewis talk in depth about the Chargers stadium search, municipal bankruptcy and whether residents are too dumb to vote on the City Hall project.

Subscribe to the Podcast Feed



MOST POPULAR STORIES:



MOST POPULAR STORIES:


Copyright © 2009 voiceofsandiego.org. All Rights Reserved.