Thanks for the Idea

Published: Monday, October 6, 2008 10:38 AM PDT

E-MAIL STORY

Let me begin with a thank-you to the proponents of Proposition B, who have brought the reuse of Tenth Avenue terminal to a public vote.

The thank you is not for their creative reuse proposal, but for the far more important protection of our rights, as citizens, to the democratic process, that their actions have defended.

This is the first time, since the San Diego Unified Port District was formed 60 years ago, that the public has had the right to directly decide how a public asset, under the port control, should be utilized.

And this right did not come without a fight. The port's leadership fought, with our money, our public funds, to keep this right away from us, the public. They fought it with a misinformation campaign. When that did not work, they fought it in court using a Los Angeles law firm to represent them -- while again using our money to fight our rights. Port officials, if I read their pleadings correctly, argued that they, the commissioners, were the final voice on the use of port resources and the public had no say or frankly any ability to decide, such important issues.

The courts, most logically, ruled against the port. So the port continued to spend public funds to appeal the superior court's ruling.

The appellate court sided with the superior court and ruled the proposal should and would appear on this November's ballot. The port has continued to fight this proposal. Even though the law prohibits the port from publicly opposing this proposition, the port has found support from their tenants, who have taken up the fight of the port's position.

This is a particularly troubling arrangement since the port is responsible for obtaining, for us the public, the maximum market-rate lease terms from these same tenants, they now having fighting their battle. Is this really the arm's-length relationship with the private sector, the public expects from its representatives?

This ballot opportunity, was gained by the initiative process, which became a part of California law almost a 100 years ago when it was decided that, if and when our public officials, elected or appointed, are no longer responsive to the people of California, the people have a legal right to wrestle control from a non-responsive elected body and make the decision, themselves, at the ballot box.

Proposition 13, which capped property taxes in California in the 1970s, is an example of the public's taking control of an issue where they could get no representation. And the public did the right thing, when they could not get their elected officials to stop raising their taxes, forcing the elderly from their homes.

Whether the proposal is the right use, under the right terms, for this valuable public resource is something I do not wish to publicly weigh in on. The decision is one each of us should make on our own, using information that we have gained, which we feel is sufficient to make an informed vote. Let me say that while leading the Centre City Development Corp., over the decades, I heard my share of naysayers, who said downtown would never be cleaned up, nor would Horton Plaza actually be built, nor would Petco Park ever be built. I learned it is far easier to destroy an idea then to build it. That is what the opponents of this proposition are counting on: That enough of the public will be too lazy to see the opportunities, creative ideas and work, can bring to our quality of life.

So I would hope my fellow citizens would not take the easy way out, but instead study the proposal before us. Let me also suggest that if this is not the best use, even if it is a better use then the present use, it should not be approved. The opportunity for the public to decide the eventual use of this public asset has now been guaranteed by the Courts.

I will say -- as I have said all my life in public service -- this property, offers one of the most beautiful views in San Diego. It is a place that should be open to public's use and enjoyment.

If that requires a total reuse of the terminal then, in my opinion that is a fair tradeoff. However, I truly believe that once the port leadership stops stonewalling the public and begins to discuss "joint uses" a win-win situation can be obtained.

-- PETER Q. DAVIS

Editor´s Choice
The reader comments you won't want to miss. (Editor's Choice selection do not represent the views of the editors. They are comments that seem to add to the discussion as opposed to less productive insults or arguments.)

The Port board, having a sad history of ignoring what the public wanted on our waterfront in favor of pandering to big hotel owners like Doug Manchester, now finds itself running behind trying to convince the public to vote down this proposal made by a group of greedy land speculators that would take away the boards zoning and land use powers over this particular stretch of public tidelands. I support the Port's maritime commerce development efforts, on the grounds it makes more sense and creates more good jobs than simply lining our bayfront with giant highrise hotels dedicated to tourists. If the Port doesn't want to see its land use powers further diminished, it needs to sponsor a downtown bayfront precise planning process, with input from the city, the Navy and the general public. Build what the public wants on our harborfront, not what big hotel developers want.

Posted by Watcher | reply to this comment
October 6, 2008 8:26 am

Interesting. However, ignoring the current proposal before us and just talking about the general idea of using the ballot, I'd say this is probably not a good trend. Would we really expect the public to examine, understand, and vote for every development proposal (or any proposal for that matter)? Our ballot list won't go from A to D, it'll go from A to Z. We do have elected representatives who help to make decisions and while they don't always make the right ones, we have a choice to vote them out. That's the hallmark of democracy. I think asking the public to examine every decision is too much to ask. However, I *definitely* think that our elected representatives should LISTEN to the public instead of their typical glad-handing and backroom deals. The current process isn't broken, it just needs to be improved.

Posted by Discdude | reply to this comment
October 6, 2008 8:37 am

Peter, the port tidelands are owned by the state, not by local voters. If the Prop B people wanted to qualify a ballot measure across the entire state, and allow all California voters to weigh on what should happen at the 10th Ave terminal, that would certainly be a proper use of direct democracy and I doubt you'd see a legal challenge; however, they didn't do that. The analogy is that San Diego voters can't get together and vote to build a second deck over Camp Pendleton, or vote to start oil drilling off the coast of Mission Beach. The port commission is an agent of the State Lands Commission, not of the local cities or their voters.

Posted by Vlad | reply to this comment
October 6, 2008 2:17 pm

I must take issue with your comment "[The Port]... needs to sponsor a downtown bayfront precise planning process, with input from the city, the Navy and the general public. Build what the public wants on our harborfront, not what big hotel developers want." That precise planning process which you advocate is a reality in the North Embarcadero Visionary Plan. This plan was recently approved by the Joint Powers Authority, whch consists of the Port, the City of San Diego and the Center City Development Corp. with extensive input from the public and the Navy. It does not build high rise hotels catering to large developers but envisions a pedestrian friendly area with parks, promanades, trees, grass and benches for the public. This notion that the Port District operates in a vacuum without regard for the wishes of the public is just plain nonsense.

Posted by Bill G | reply to this comment
October 7, 2008 2:31 pm

8 Comments so far on this story...

In recent years the initiative process has morphed into a means for moneyed special interests to get their way, by utilizing paid signature gatherers and deep pockets for campaigning. This initiative is an extreme example--these individuals have dreamed up a lucrative project for themselves, and now they are trying to sell it to the electorate. This is hardly a case of the people's "legal right to wrestle control from a non-responsive elected body..."

Posted by Steve K | reply to this comment
October 6, 2008 12:06 pm

Discdude: That's one of the problems. The Port officials who currently control out public tidelands are appointed, not elected. As such, they don't answer to the voters, the state or anyone else. Returning control over state owned public tidelands may require new legislation from Sacramento, or perhaps another initiative requiring the Port to give first priority on our public tidelands to public parks and other uses, instead of pandering to the giant hotel interests. At the very least, the public must be given a greater voice in planning what is going to be built on our downtown bayfront tidelands. It shouldn't be decided by five potentially conflicted appointed commissioners beholden to no one.

Posted by Watcher | reply to this comment
October 7, 2008 8:02 am

Watcher -- that's really sad that I didn't even know they were appointed, and I'm supposed to be an informed person! (I really don't follow the Port that closely) I certainly see your point, though. What I was getting at generally is that ballot-based initiatives on every single issue could be problematic for the voting public, I hate to say it, but we might not do a better job. I appreciate Mr. Davis' thoughts, but it appears to be a thinly veiled attempt to use the idea of the initiative process as reasoning for his support of this particular initiative.

Posted by discdude | reply to this comment
October 7, 2008 9:32 am

Don't open hearings for all public projects give the public a chance to review and weigh in on the projects. From the port's web site, it appears that long-range planning is in place and one of the board's missions is to consider the public interest (not the interest of developers). The budget comes from the state and not from local coffers. Money collected from leases is put back into the budget. It seems we really have a LOT of public spaces and parks all the way around this huge bay of ours. Compare with OC or LA and I don't see how you can complain about it. The convention center and hotels are bringing lots of money into the city and they also support lots of jobs for locals.

Posted by Keeks | reply to this comment
October 13, 2008 9:24 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.