The movement to expand San Diego’s Convention Center at its current site on the waterfront has never had a worse season.
Its most prominent backers are falling off, one by one. The city of San Diego no longer even controls the land it would need. (The people who do control it are rapidly advancing a plan to build a hotel on it.)
In court, the plan faces a passionate foe, who not long ago helped kill off a financing plan for the project that took years to put together. Were it to survive all this, it would need the support of two-thirds of voters. Yet two initiatives on the ballot right now would erase that hope.
The mayor is now openly promoting one of them.
Perhaps least helpful, the project’s newfound critics are starting to talk about something rarely discussed before: how expensive and disruptive construction of the expansion would be.
The idea to expand the Convention Center at its current location is as dead as the idea to move the airport to Miramar.
Support Independent Journalism Today
You and other prominent San Diegans of your generation need to ask yourselves whether the decisions taken 30-40 years ago that put tourism, and in particular conventions and related entertainment businesses, at the center of what defines downtown San Diego, should still reflect what downtown should be.
It’s understandable that back then people saw any possibility for a downtown beyond a military waterfront, an abandoned central shopping district, and aging isolated neighborhoods as better than what existed. But the state of the city, the issues and opportunities associated with urban living, as well as those presented by the changes and growth of various economic sectors here, statewide and across the country suggest it’s time to rethink the economic and cultural focus of downtown.
I would challenge the Mayor’s assertion that “tourism drives our economy” -- VoSD itself has published statistics that show quite the opposite – and offer there are several cities in America that attract considerably more tourists and conventioneers than SD with worse weather and without turning over their center city or public treasury to the hotel, restaurant, amusement and entertainment industries.
These cities attract more tourists than San Diego because they’re economic centers and interesting cities to visit, not just amusement parks. In developer jargon “they’re place making.” Isn’t it time downtown San Diego became a more interesting place? A maniacal focus on its convention center (and now potential football stadium) isn’t going to get it there.
I would interview Doug Manchester and Bob Filner on the topic. Ask the former why, how or why not downtown can’t become the residential and business center of the region. Ask the latter to spill the beans on Spanos, football, the hoteliers and local politics. Why not? He’s got nothing to lose.
@Bob Stein Big important point here. Many have been willing to frame this as a binary choice - Convention Tourism vs. Football. A third path is to think about Downtown as a growing (or already arrived in many ways) residential hub. The problem is that TOT is so important to city finances that it has a very hard time getting off that pathway.
Does that mean to be anthetical to the tourism industry? Absolutely not. But it does ask about whether we need to invest in EITHER the convention center or the convadium. Raising TOT by 6 cents generates a TON of money which could go into quality of life things - which might frankly drive economic development and local incomes higher than either of the existing two choices presented.
All this reads very differently if a downtown-side expansion option is recognized. It's a much better solution for everyone if the city and CC are willing to study it.
@Jeffrey Davis I'm a big proponent of proximity and would love to see this idea considered, but the obvious question - what happens with the street and the train? Are you proposing an entirely-underground expansion? Or would you put the train and street underground?
@Scott Lewis@Milton Lawson There's a few ways to approach it and I'd look forward to seeing what talented folks come up with. The roadway is the relatively easy part. Possibilities: put it below grade (some already is), reduce the lanes, eliminate it and run through traffic to the rear roadway and/or downtown, run two lanes *over* a saddle in the expansion... there's options. The rail is harder. Underground would be great. Or leave it but compress out excess shoulder and greenway and add the latest in multiple crossing points. It's a challenge. But a more realistic approach at this point than any other.
At this point my head is spinning. If the big objection to the convention center expansion is “walling off” public access, how does a hotel and marina not do that?
Cory Briggs claims this real estate is “the public’s real estate”. Since it’s owned and managed by the Port District, how does that follow. The port isn’t accountable to the public, is it? It sure doesn't behave that way (See, e.g., current plan for Seaport Village),
@Bill Bradshaw Bill, the Port should be accountable to the public but it isn't, to some extent because the Commissioners are appointed and not elected.
@Judith Swink @Bill Bradshaw How then do "We the People" prevent the "walling off"? It seems the only recourse is the courts. But Briggs and the SDNBCC are very selective in who they sue, which begs the question why is it only they who sue? That apparent monopoly gives them a lot of power, which we provide by leaving it up to them! That is the real problem here.
Without compromising any of SDNBCC legal rights/claims when the final product for the Fifth Avenue Landing hotel proposal is rolled out for approval:
The public should read SDNBCC's legal brief (linked above) in the current lawsuit to have the contiguous expansion proposal invalidated. It provides a good overview of the history of the South Embarcadero from the late 1980s to the present.
The city, the port, and the coastal commission, as well as the Hilton and FAL hotel developers, all promised that there would eventually be 5.5 acres of public park/plaza on the waterfront between the convention center, the Hilton Hotel, the FAL hotel, and the waterfront; the Hilton would provide about 80% of that space, and the FAL hotel would provide about 20%. The FAL hotel would also provide other public-access enhancements. The 5.5-acre public park/plaza and enhancements were written into the final approvals and are legally binding. SDNBCC has not seen anything so far to indicate that the final product for the proposed FAL hotel will reduce or eliminate the promised additional public park/plaza space or the other promised enhancements.
All things being equal, and if the only two choices are (1) the already approved and legally binding FAL hotel with its additions to the existing public park/plaza and additional public-access enhancements versus (2) the illegal big-box expansion of the convention center that (as you can see in the drawing above) leaves no room for the public park/plaza, SDNBCC will take the FAL hotel.
Thank you for answering my question Diane. It is now clear that Briggs and the SDNBCC have been working with Carpenter and Engel all along. You are now cheerleaders for the FAL 850-room hotel complex on the waterfront as you became cheerleaders for the massive Lane Field hotel project after you signed the infamous Lane Field MOU. So much for being the guardians of the waterfront.
Deals or Gifts? Cushman's deal with Fifth Avenue Landing LLC (FAL) for GIFTS of public funds should be investigated by local media.
The fact that the Port let 5th Avenue Landing LLC (FAL) start a new CEQA process for a new hotel development on the waterfront means nothing. The current approved Master Plan Amendment deleted the proposed FAL Spinnaker Hotel as part of the Coastal Development Permit (CDP) Approval Agreement.
Mayor Faulconer, the City Council, the Port of San Diego, and the San Diego Convention Center Corporation (SDCCC) previously GIFTED millions to 5th Avenue Landing LLC (FAL). Then tried to sucker another -$13.8 million of public funds for the Option to Lease. Allowing the CEQA process for a new Hotel to start was also irresponsible, because the Port is the setting FAL up for a lawsuit.
Thus trying to create controversy without acknowledging the public's rights to our public State Tideland Trust. Great news that after ten 10+years of complaining that Port lawyers, Cushman, and Congressman Scott Peters, City Attorney Goldsmith, Mayor Faulconer, and the City Council misunderstood the power of Eminent Domain and the terms of the FAL Port Master Lease, everyone including the Port Board finally understands their financial responsibilities and powers. This is very big news. Thanks. But the public has already been played.
Instead of another +$13.8 million GIFT, the Port could have use the Power of Eminent Domain for our Public State Tideland, and as allowed by every Port Master Lease including the FAL Lease. The easy solution is no longer being ignored.
Please investigate how much $ millions in Cash has already been GIFTED by the City Council, Port, and Convention Center for the 5th Avenue Landing LLC Lease at inflated rates from 2006 to 2016. To not be a gift, the payments to FAL had to be based on actual financial information.
With Eminent Domain FAL would be made Whole and Relocated. By fraud laws, at most using Eminent Domain FAL would receive a new waterfront relocation and compensation for the amount of money they used to develop the beautiful public park, Embarcadero, public restrooms, and the Yacht Harbor, plus buying out the remainder of the Lease at the same low cost rate, not the excessive inflated price.
The Port of San Diego needs to be investigated for their GIFTs of Public Funds to FAL, LLC, A Delaware Limited Liability Corporation. The fair solution would be to take off the top any money already GIFTED to FAL for the Eminent Domain Relocation.
Mr. Terzi serves at the pleasure of the hotel lobby, so consider his comments accordingly. And Don Quixote Cushman never lacked for chutzpah. The guy you listen to here is Peters, who soured on the concept for all the very valid reasons listed in the article. Measure C opponents using the fantasy of a "contiguous" convention center as reason to reject it might as well argue that money earmarked for solar energy would be better spent building a perpetual motion machine.
Your article is factually inaccurate. The city did not sublease anything, they purchased the lease and then after 5 years defaulted on the purchase requiring 5th Ave Landing to take a deed in lieu of foreclosure and complete it's obligation to the Port required in it's lease
@art engel I was trying to summarize it quickly. I'm aware of distinction. I wish you all would have considered speaking with me.
Will Corry Briggs’ “… no more of the South Embarcadero would be “walled off” to sate the appetite of a few greedy, politically connected special interests for prime waterfront real estate …” extend to Ray Carpenter and Art Engel's Fifth Avenue Landing LLC plans for an 850 room hotel “with public plazas and a promenade with retail”? Will he also sue to stop this Fifth Avenue Landing project for the same reason he has sued the Coastal Commission and the Port? Both projects would “wall off” the South Embarcadero, using the same waterfront land.
The Port has already given a green light to Carpenter and Engel isn’t it time for Briggs and his client the San Diego Navy Broadway Coalition to put the Port on notice that they intend to sue in order to be consistent in their defense of the waterfront? The trial date for the Coastal Commission lawsuit is set for December 15, 2016. It would be a tragedy for the waterfront if Briggs won against the Coastal Commission only to clear the way for Carpenter and Engel.
City testifed under oath that they have np plans whatsoever to expand the conv center cause it is going to be tied up in the courts for 5 years. It's all a big hoax to use a scare tactic as a tool to achieve their pwn political gain. What would the polling be when asked " If the Chargers plan was the ONLY way to expand the convention center would you support it? Wonder how the numbers would change
@Thomas Powell --Would I support it? No way.