Pie In The Sky

Published: Wednesday, October 8, 2008 10:54 PM PDT

E-MAIL STORY

California voters are going to face dozens of statewide and local ballot propositions in November. Without question the strangest and most implausible of all these measures is a local initiative in San Diego -- Proposition B. If enacted, this fantasy island in the sky would allow for the construction of a 100 acre deck suspended over a marine terminal.

The deck would supposedly support the construction of a football stadium and hotel facility on top of a working marine terminal. Underneath the 100,000 or so people attending football games would be ships unloading cargo, trucks, forklifts moving back and forth along with a jet fuel storage facility (barbeques at tailgates would be strongly discouraged).

Sound too incredible to be true? Unfortunately not. Interestingly, the proponents of Proposition B have managed to unify just about everyone in San Diego against this measure. Labor unions, the entire local Congressional delegation, environmental groups, chambers of commerce, mayors, City Council members, the San Diego Union-Tribune, taxpayer associations, international trade organizations, retired military leaders, the California State Lands Commission and academics are all opposed to this measure.

The proposed construction of a 100-acre concrete deck, sufficient to support a sports/hotel complex over the 10th Avenue Marine Terminal raises extraordinary engineering, cost, feasibility, legal and practical questions. For the initiative's proponents to argue that such a facility is compatible with the terminal's cargo operations is disingenuous.

In reality, the initiative will bring about the end of a much needed international trade facility that is vital to our economy. The loss of the 10th Avenue Marine Terminal will result in the loss of more than 19,000 jobs for San Diego County and once these maritime facilities are lost, they cannot be replaced.

Perhaps more importantly, the initiative may also be a harbinger of even more threats to face our commercial ports -- as if they didn't have enough to begin with. Whether the initiative is "pie in the sky" or "too good to be true" really matters less than the fact that it seeks to diminish San Diego's and California's joint-role as a trade gateway, threatens the loss of maritime and logistics jobs, raises serious port security concerns and proposes the permanent loss of the use of public trust lands to a land grab by private developers.

For now I'm cautiously optimistic. I have faith that, once they're informed about the phantasmagoria of outrageous claims by the developers, voters in San Diego will recognize the difference between this fantasy island in the sky and reality.

-- JOHN MCLAURIN

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.)

Would someone explain to me where those 19,000 jobs are that would be lost. I see very few ships ever unloading at the Terminal.

Posted by Questioning ? | reply to this comment
October 13, 2008 9:15 am

4 Comments so far on this story...

This initiative would have never happened if the Port District had earned the trust of the public over the last 40+ years. Instead it has treated our publicly owned tidelands as its private property, leasing it out to an ever expanding convention center and influential hotel developers for their own profit and short changing the general public every step of the way. No wonder special interest real estate speculators like these see an opportunity to turn voter emnity against the Port to their own advantage, but using the ballot to seize control over the 10th Avenue Marine Terminal. Since the Port board has never recognized the desires of the public as its redeveloped our downtown waterfront, why should the public support the Port now? This is a bad proposition, but because of the arrogance of the Port over the years, it just might pass.

Posted by Watcher | reply to this comment
October 10, 2008 9:13 am

I'm curious as to how you think the Port is not serving the public interest when a great portion of the land is used for public parks, boardwalks, public artworks, etc. The "new" Convention Center and surrounding property has been nothing but a boon for this city -- it has helped as much as anything to completely revitalize the Gaslamp District. The visitors who come to the various conventions and stay in the waterfront hotels bring lots of money into the city as they patronize restaurants, shops, and local events. I am a resident but have often visited the restaurants and clubs inside those big hotels - they are for all. A private citizen can walk unhindered with views and art and parks almost completely around the entire span of the bay (Shelter Island, Harbor Island, Embarcadero, Seaport Village and beyond). What's the beef, exactly?

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

1,817 are jobs are held by companies operating at BOTH terminals (as we have made clear throughout, our study looked at both National City and 10th Avenute), 155 are indirect jobs that service the terminals, 2883 are induced by the spending from the direct and indirect jobs. And 14,443 are "influenced" by the terminals (i.e. the jobs are at companies that use ther terminals to move goods through and then we applied a ratio to that number that measured the value added by the terminal to the product (i.e. a very very low ratio was applied to automobile sales to account for the influence of the value of the national city terminal on that industry; a higher ratio for shipbuilding to account for the value 10th avenue provides to Nassco products.

Posted by Erik Bruvold | reply to this comment
October 13, 2008 1:00 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.