Voters need real choices, not forced ones
Most of my blog posts will be more generalized than applying primarily to San Diego, so I apologize for being parochial in this one. Of course, short-sighted public policies and policy-making processes certainly are not limited to the City of San Diego so in that sense these thoughts are also relevant to other regions of the country.
In the November 2018 elections San Diego's voters are being asked to choose between two competing ballot initiatives for the redevelopment of land tied into the former Qualcomm football stadium site in Mission Valley. Although each proposal adds a variety of sweeteners, at their core one is to make the land available for the future expansion of San Diego State University. The competing initiative is to build a new soccer stadium, plus the sweeteners. Another major initiative facing voters for an up-or-down vote is expansion of the downtown waterfront Convention Center, financed by an expansion of the Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT). From its current 12.5 percent the TOT would be increased by between 1.25 and 3.25 percentage points, depending on how close hotels are to the Convention Center.
My major problem with both proposals is that they are "forced choices", giving voters only an either/or choice in the Qualcomm land use matter and only a "yes or no" choice in the Convention Center expansion. Voters should have their say in the use of the Mission Valley land and the scarce amount of still-vacant land on the downtown waterfront. What I find objectionable is that voters are being forced to select fromfar too few options for future uses of these incredibly valuable pieces of land. California's process for electing government officials involves the primary process, where voters initially select from among many competing candidates in winnowing down the field ultimately to two final candidates. There was no similar process for the land use issues heading toward the November ballot. Proponents short-circuited the winnowing process by pushing their personal interests through as ballot initiatives to the final choices. "Voter involvement" was limited to those who signed the initiative proposal in order to help it approved for the November ballot. Judging by the much larger number of shoppers who walk past the signature-gathering tables in front of our local grocery store versus those who stop and sign initiative papers, the fact initiatives can gather enough signatures to qualify for a ballot says more about how disinterested/disgusted the majority of voters have become than it does about "voter approval" and involvement in those initiative processes.
Taking the two issues in reverse order, to me the Convention Center expansion and TOT increase represent the continued walling-off of the downtown waterfront, and in this instance perhaps the last available piece of land which could otherwise be left vacant or developed for the primary benefit of San Diego's citizens rather than tourists and convention goers. It's all about generating more tax revenues, sales taxes and TOT revenues, to feed government initiatives and to put tourists, convention- goers and hotel owners ahead of local citizens in enjoying what's left of the undeveloped downtown waterfront.
In the case of the former Qualcomm stadium land use issue, rather than being forced to choose between two competing proposals (SDSU/Soccer City) in November 2018 let's not vote. Rather, take this land use question back to the drawing boards. We have such creative minds in this region, let's challenge them to propose additional ideas reflecting the "highest and best use" of the land. We are blessed with several of the best universities in this nation--why not harness the talents of their their students and faculty? The sweeteners in the current proposals both include elements of ideas voters might want to see included in any redevelopment of the Qualcomm land (homeless shelter and/or services, affordable housing, parkland along the river flowing through this land). However, they are just minor sweeteners, not the core of either alternative.
Voters need real, legitimate choices, This region needs to back off of the current forced choices and instead commit to a civic process of evaluating a host of ideas for the highest and best use of the Qualcomm land. Then, whether through a lengthy voting process ala our primary system's way of winnowing candidates to two finalists, or through a process of civic dialogue involving a wide swath of voters in San Diego county, we should be able to come up with two or three competing alternatives. My best guess is that the new final alternatives to review and approve or send back to the drawing boards a second time might contain elements of the current proposals, but would have different key elements at their core (likely not a soccer stadium and perhaps not space for SDSU expansion).
Let me illustrate my suggestion about looking at new competing alternatives for the Mission Valley land. If flows out of my need to hire skilled labor several times over the last 12 months: electricians, plumbers, contractors, handymen and others. It was a time-consuming and expensive process because the most skilled professionals can't handle all the business they have. Good for them, of course, but frustrating for me.
My suggestion, therefore, is that another possible major use of the Mission Valley land could be a first class, major, nationally recognized university for skilled tradesmen and women. It would not be a four-year program but perhaps one-to-two years in duration, educating and training thousands of students in future years, attracting candidates from across the country (most of whom would be expected to return to their homes elsewhere). It could be a consortium of private, for-profit programs to be developed on site or already in existence and available to be moved to Mission Valley. Or it could be non-profit organizations and programs, whether privately run or operated as government-sponsored. I learned just yesterday that a successful program along these lines already exists in north county San Diego, and that it has plans for expansion nationally. Perhaps this program could become the linchpin of a center of excellence in the skilled trades in Mission Valley. Who knows? Until we generate new civic ideas, give them much higher public profiles, and send them to the balloting process for all voters to evaluate, we will forever be abused by special interests pursuing their own ends and municipal leaders seeking constant increases in tax revenues.
The next time your toilet gets clogged or your house needs rewiring, would you rather call a tourist or someone who graduated from the University of Skilled Trades in San Diego? That is just one example of potential uses of the Mission Valley land. I am sure readers can think of others and welcome your thoughts. If you respond please do use the blog rather than directly to me so that your thoughts are shared with a wider audience than just yours truly. Mark
In the November 2018 elections San Diego's voters are being asked to choose between two competing ballot initiatives for the redevelopment of land tied into the former Qualcomm football stadium site in Mission Valley. Although each proposal adds a variety of sweeteners, at their core one is to make the land available for the future expansion of San Diego State University. The competing initiative is to build a new soccer stadium, plus the sweeteners. Another major initiative facing voters for an up-or-down vote is expansion of the downtown waterfront Convention Center, financed by an expansion of the Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT). From its current 12.5 percent the TOT would be increased by between 1.25 and 3.25 percentage points, depending on how close hotels are to the Convention Center.
My major problem with both proposals is that they are "forced choices", giving voters only an either/or choice in the Qualcomm land use matter and only a "yes or no" choice in the Convention Center expansion. Voters should have their say in the use of the Mission Valley land and the scarce amount of still-vacant land on the downtown waterfront. What I find objectionable is that voters are being forced to select fromfar too few options for future uses of these incredibly valuable pieces of land. California's process for electing government officials involves the primary process, where voters initially select from among many competing candidates in winnowing down the field ultimately to two final candidates. There was no similar process for the land use issues heading toward the November ballot. Proponents short-circuited the winnowing process by pushing their personal interests through as ballot initiatives to the final choices. "Voter involvement" was limited to those who signed the initiative proposal in order to help it approved for the November ballot. Judging by the much larger number of shoppers who walk past the signature-gathering tables in front of our local grocery store versus those who stop and sign initiative papers, the fact initiatives can gather enough signatures to qualify for a ballot says more about how disinterested/disgusted the majority of voters have become than it does about "voter approval" and involvement in those initiative processes.
Taking the two issues in reverse order, to me the Convention Center expansion and TOT increase represent the continued walling-off of the downtown waterfront, and in this instance perhaps the last available piece of land which could otherwise be left vacant or developed for the primary benefit of San Diego's citizens rather than tourists and convention goers. It's all about generating more tax revenues, sales taxes and TOT revenues, to feed government initiatives and to put tourists, convention- goers and hotel owners ahead of local citizens in enjoying what's left of the undeveloped downtown waterfront.
In the case of the former Qualcomm stadium land use issue, rather than being forced to choose between two competing proposals (SDSU/Soccer City) in November 2018 let's not vote. Rather, take this land use question back to the drawing boards. We have such creative minds in this region, let's challenge them to propose additional ideas reflecting the "highest and best use" of the land. We are blessed with several of the best universities in this nation--why not harness the talents of their their students and faculty? The sweeteners in the current proposals both include elements of ideas voters might want to see included in any redevelopment of the Qualcomm land (homeless shelter and/or services, affordable housing, parkland along the river flowing through this land). However, they are just minor sweeteners, not the core of either alternative.
Voters need real, legitimate choices, This region needs to back off of the current forced choices and instead commit to a civic process of evaluating a host of ideas for the highest and best use of the Qualcomm land. Then, whether through a lengthy voting process ala our primary system's way of winnowing candidates to two finalists, or through a process of civic dialogue involving a wide swath of voters in San Diego county, we should be able to come up with two or three competing alternatives. My best guess is that the new final alternatives to review and approve or send back to the drawing boards a second time might contain elements of the current proposals, but would have different key elements at their core (likely not a soccer stadium and perhaps not space for SDSU expansion).
Let me illustrate my suggestion about looking at new competing alternatives for the Mission Valley land. If flows out of my need to hire skilled labor several times over the last 12 months: electricians, plumbers, contractors, handymen and others. It was a time-consuming and expensive process because the most skilled professionals can't handle all the business they have. Good for them, of course, but frustrating for me.
My suggestion, therefore, is that another possible major use of the Mission Valley land could be a first class, major, nationally recognized university for skilled tradesmen and women. It would not be a four-year program but perhaps one-to-two years in duration, educating and training thousands of students in future years, attracting candidates from across the country (most of whom would be expected to return to their homes elsewhere). It could be a consortium of private, for-profit programs to be developed on site or already in existence and available to be moved to Mission Valley. Or it could be non-profit organizations and programs, whether privately run or operated as government-sponsored. I learned just yesterday that a successful program along these lines already exists in north county San Diego, and that it has plans for expansion nationally. Perhaps this program could become the linchpin of a center of excellence in the skilled trades in Mission Valley. Who knows? Until we generate new civic ideas, give them much higher public profiles, and send them to the balloting process for all voters to evaluate, we will forever be abused by special interests pursuing their own ends and municipal leaders seeking constant increases in tax revenues.
The next time your toilet gets clogged or your house needs rewiring, would you rather call a tourist or someone who graduated from the University of Skilled Trades in San Diego? That is just one example of potential uses of the Mission Valley land. I am sure readers can think of others and welcome your thoughts. If you respond please do use the blog rather than directly to me so that your thoughts are shared with a wider audience than just yours truly. Mark
ReplyDeleteThe Trade school idea is great! My daughter is a Vice Principal in Burbank and I push her all the time to bring back shop classes. SEE LA Trade Tech for a prototype https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uzS_YYPTY7k&feature=youtu.be
On QUALCOMM, I will not vote for either. I believe that a 50% of all voters is required to pass. I would let the property go to market.
Vote in general. The voters of San Diego voted for pension reform a few years ago. The unions found a way to reverse the peoples vote in court. Just because then mayor Jerry Sanders spoke on the initiatives.
Thank you for your comments, especially about LA Trade Tech. I will have more to say about that topic and the elections in the coming months.
Delete