voiceofsandiego.org: Slop... Gaylord and the Power Plant
an independent nonprofit |
Support This Service

Gaylord and the Power Plant

Published: Friday, March 7, 2008 4:19 PM PST



I took the opportunity the other day to ask Chula Vista City Manager David Garcia about Gaylord Entertainment's proposed convention center and resort on the city's bay front. After all, with Garcia making no bones about its financial troubles these days, did he think of Gaylord much the same way that Mayor Cheryl Cox does, as a sort of long-term balance for a fundamentally unbalanced city budget?

It's a potentially problematic perspective. If Gaylord is the solution for the troubled municipal budget, it's going to take a while to do much solving. Many of the taxes and fees generated when (and if) Gaylord opens, will immediately be funneled to pay off the debt incurred to construct the facility and its infrastructure.

They'll be hoping the new visitors to South County will buy an extra Chula Vista T-shirt or two before leaving.

I know I'm a big fan of the Chula T.

Garcia said he sees a more long-term benefit to Chula Vista from Gaylord.

"The real impact of Gaylord is that it's going to bring the hospitality industry to Chula Vista, which we've never had before," he said.

That is, if it's built. There's still a big ugly power plant squatting in the way.

Bennett Westbrook: Show me a sexy power plant and I'll show you a convention center.
I made it to National City this week to catch a public appearance from Bennett Westbrook, Gaylord's senior vice president for development. I and several other reporters and South Bay luminaries were promised an update on what was going on.

I had a few questions I was anxious to pose to Westbrook.

Like how about that power plant?

In a letter a couple of months ago to the state's electricity gods, Mayor Cox said this, according to the Union-Tribune:

"Gaylord has written that they will not conclude their agreement and move forward if the existing power plant remains on the Bayfront," Cox wrote.

So, in discussion with Westbrook, I asked him about the South Bay Power Plant.

Does it have to go?

"We're hopeful that the power plant will be relocated or replaced with a more aesthetically pleasing power plant," Westbrook said.

What if it's not? another reporter asked.

"We'll have to explore that with the city and port at a later date," Westbrook said.

So you're not willing to say you'd be here regardless of the power plant situation?

"I'm not going to say one way or the other on that," he said.

Why?

"I'm just not," he said.

OK. But after a digression, I asked him again -- this time focusing on Cox's letter. Her letter came in response to the release of the environmental report about the Sunrise Powerlink. The federal government, doing the report, decided that a viable alternative to the controversial power line that would bisect the Anza-Borrego Desert State Park is a new power plant on the bay front.

If they made that "aesthetically pleasing" like Westbrook said, maybe it would be OK? right?

Oh yeah, but Cox, in her letter, says that Westbrook and friends won't have anything to do with the bay front if it has a power plant at all.

So, again, I wanted Westbrook to clear it up. Cox's letter said Gaylord won't come unless the power plant is gone.

"It contemplates that," Westbrook said.

You don't want to contemplate that any further? I asked.

"No."

-- SCOTT LEWIS




12 Comments so far on this story...

So, it's not the unions that are keeping Gaylord from signing on the dotted line, it's the power plant? Nice job scape-goating workers, Gaylord. Who wants that kind of employer in the region?

Posted by observation | reply to this comment
March 8, 2008 6:47 am

Does it strike odd to anyone else that all of a sudden the South Bay boogeyman Power-plant is the total focus of everything negative that keeps us from the Gaylord-Charger nirvana while the real basic economic news in CV is a cascading disaster? This stinks of a dis-information campaign designed to distract us from some rather un-forgiving truths that expose the entire scam.Thursday 488 layoff notices went out to teachers and staff in the school district. Last week San Diego assumed responsibility for CV's Emergency Medical Services. Two months ago there were layoffs in the Fire/Police ranks and within months the foreclosures of residential homes will top 1,000. Where is the economic basis for the proposed infra-structure bond issue that's necessary to support both the Gaylord/Charger proposals? I don't see it. But if it's there its evaporating b4 our eyes.The SDGE/Gaylord/Charge/ emperors wear no clothes. The truth here is naked.

Posted by Sun of apollo | reply to this comment
March 8, 2008 6:53 am

Gaylord is another development boondoggle! The $308,000,000 is supposed to be borrowed by Gaylord and then paid back out of future tax offsets. This sound bite hyperbole is very misleading. First, even after the taxes pay off this $308,000,000, the revenues received go directly to the Redevelopment fund. It will only be used to support and promote MORE development. Gaylord’s MO is to be completely self-contained. They supply all of the services that their visitors require. Small city business will reap no economic benefit from this. As far as the $308,000,000 goes, what happens to this debt if Gaylord goes broke (check their financials!!!!)? Cox and the City Manager should do their homework before leaving the citizens of CV a white elephant like Gaylord. In the future this will be known as the Cox/Garcia folly.

Posted by Simon | reply to this comment
March 8, 2008 8:20 am

Gaylord is just playing games at this point. They need to either ink the lease or leave, but we shouldn't have to continue to put up with their coy games unless they get going.

Posted by Uncle Cyrus Overbay | reply to this comment
March 8, 2008 1:23 pm

Chula Vista wants to play with the big boys and stop being SD's homely stepsister. Gaylord or no Gaylord, who wouldn't want to clear the monstrosity that is South Bay Power Plant off prime waterfront land? Maybe that's really Cox's endgame -- using Gaylord as a carrot for SBPP relocation, rather than the other way around. Simon, while Gaylord might make their own complex self-contained, that doesn't mean it won't fertilize tourism and retail in the area. If you've ever seen the Chula Vista bayfront, it's probably the most underutilized spot on the West Coast -- unless you think a filthy 1950s power plant is the best and highest use of precious coastal land...

Posted by wannabes | reply to this comment
March 9, 2008 7:46 pm

If the power plant is the crux in this whole deal, why isn't Gaylord being asked to find a suitable site for the "new power plant"? And, why are they not being required to power their development off of on-site solar power. The reality is we live in an area with limited power resources. In addition, I think that CV or Gaylord will have a tough time finding a suitable site for a new power plant. Even if they did, it will be years before they could break ground due to the environmental impact reports and NIMBYism that will have to be overcome. The thought of losing a local power plant all together is simply unacceptable given San Diego's lack of locally produced power. If we ever want lower rates with less reliability on purchased power, we need the plants we already have.

Posted by Power Wise | reply to this comment
March 10, 2008 9:42 am

If the power plant is the crux in this whole deal, why isn't Gaylord being asked to find a suitable site for the "new power plant"? And, why are they not being required to power their development off of on-site solar power. The reality is we live in an area with limited power resources. In addition, I think that CV or Gaylord will have a tough time finding a suitable site for a new power plant. Even if they did, it will be years before they could break ground due to the environmental impact reports and NIMBYism that will have to be overcome. The thought of losing a local power plant all together is simply unacceptable given San Diego's lack of locally produced power. If we ever want lower rates with less reliability on purchased power, we need the plants we already have.

Posted by Power Wise | reply to this comment
March 10, 2008 9:42 am

Chula Vista taxpayers beware! If your elected officials/city manager are anything like the City of San Diego's, they can't be trusted to negotiate with business interests or unions. The best case in San Diego, on most major deals, in the past 12 years, or so, is that our city government has been hoodwinked, like sheep negotiating with wolves.

Posted by Steve K | reply to this comment
March 10, 2008 11:20 am

Hmmm, first it was the unions. Now it is the power plant. What's next, Gaylord?

Posted by AS... | reply to this comment
March 11, 2008 12:09 am

This is a critical topic that needs vetting. Permit me to contribute & respond with some thoughts to advance the discussion.Observati The quality of the contractor vendors and the work they do is critical. The applicant has a checker'd history in both Labor-management relations and in the quality of the work they perform.Low bid-minimum wage. This does not instill confidence but this region needs the work.$3 bil and the resultant trickle down is huge.Simon-Cyrus-Wan One does get a sense that there's alot of consultant churning and scapegoating going on here. The material, empirical data coming from CV is in such contrast from what's offered as a solution to all of the regions's problems that it defies any credibility.Power-wi is the solution and until SDGE gets that message we desperately need that power plant, funky as it is. Simon: Oracle of the Board. You prophetic poster.

Posted by Hands across the aisle | reply to this comment
March 11, 2008 5:00 am

At an event last Friday, Mr. Westbrook was quoted as saying "construction costs would be too high if we relied on local labor." So it seems that Gaylord has no intention of using local labor. This certainly lends credence to the claims that were being made by the unions. Also, since the project is governed by prevailing wages, can someone who supports Gaylord's position please explain why local labor would be more expensive. It seems to me that if you don't have to pay the cost of transporting and housing workers, the cost would actually go down. Unless, of course, Gaylord had no intention of following the law and paying prevailing wages. But they wouldn't do that. Would they?

Posted by Horatio Algier | reply to this comment
March 11, 2008 1:29 pm

Powerwise - you say "If we ever want lower rates with less reliability on purchased power, we need the plants we already have." The power produced by all local plants is "purchased power" as well. Our power-delivery company, SDG&E, only owns one plant (in Escondido), and that power costs money, too. Just because power is locally generated doesn't mean it's cheaper. In fact, all those who oppose new transmission to get power from elsewhere might think they're putting us on the road to cheaper power, but they're actually making us reliant on fewer generators -- which does not make power cheaper. Reliance on local only makes us more subject to price manipulation by producers. The "big extension cord," as Shingletown Chris calls the power link, links S.D. to a vast number of power producers and gives local producers competition for cheap power.

Posted by Power Full | reply to this comment
March 11, 2008 2:29 pm


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
0a6c9a5

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 (November 8): Scott Lewis and Michael Zucchet talk about the city's budget

Subscribe to the Podcast Feed



MOST POPULAR STORIES:



MOST POPULAR STORIES:


Copyright © 2009 voiceofsandiego.org. All Rights Reserved.