Vote No on Two Ballot initiatives, Measures E and G

This piece is relevant to voters in San Diego, who are being asked to vote up or down on two ballot measures regarding the award of 99 year leases on 250+ acres of some of the most valuable and centrally located land in this entire region.  No alternative land uses were offered to voters for their consideration. The two being voted upon either allocate the land to San Diego State University for its expansion needs or to a group of private developers to build a professional soccer stadium along with ancillary development.  In both Measures,  ancillary developments are included simply as sweeteners to try to convince voters to vote yes when in every sense neither Measure deserves to be approved.  Superior alternatives exist but were not considered.  Voters are being asked to support one of the two when in fact the voters can turn down both and send the land use questions back to the civic drawing boards for more rigorous examination and evaluation in the context of what their best use is over the next 100 years, for the good of all San Diegans. I submitted this to the local newspaper but its op-ed space for political pieces had already been fully allocated.  If the measure both fail as I hope they will, I intend to continue writing on land uses for the space under consideration.

Why Measures E and G Need to be Sent Back to the Drawing Boards

 Mark J. Riedy, PhD

Neither Measure E (Soccer City Citizens’ initiative) nor Measure G (SDSU West Citizens’ initiative) contribute meaningfully to advancing the quality of life for future generations of the citizens of San Diego.  Neither represents the highest and best possible use of the 250+ acre Mission Valley stadium property and former Chargers practice facility.  Neither initiative has had to compete against other, potentially superior, proposals, nor survive a primary election in order to make it to the (general election) finals. They did not have to run the gauntlet of public opinion and preferences over the last 12 – 18 months as our candidates for Governor, John Cox and Gavin Newsom, had to do.

Yet for all he will have had to go through, the (well-vetted) winning candidate for Governor can hold his position for eight years at most.  In contrast, if either of these two (poorly vetted) Measures is approved by voters, the City of San Diego will cede control of the land for a minimum lease of 99 years.  Land that is centrally located and is extremely valuable because it is large enough to accommodate a wide variety of potential users and uses.  Indeed, this land has the potential to become the City’s second crown jewel, alongside Balboa Park.

I’m sure there are many alternatives that are worthy of consideration, and offer one as an example of what could be far superior uses of this land than the two measures San Diegans are being forced to vote upon. Thinking big, devote this land to academic education, training in professional trades, high tech/bio tech/blue tech research and development, and entrepreneurship.  Include a vibrant center for researching, promoting and programming for successful aging and the intergenerational transfer of skills and knowledge.  Anchor the land with a multi-purpose campus shared by San Diego’s major universities and a new Center for Successful Aging in a mixed-use development, with student, faculty and seniors housing above classrooms, labs and offices.  Surround the campus with public parkland, restaurants and other retail.

Both measures should be rejected until the City of San Diego figures out what it wants to be when it grows up and develops a set of overarching goals and strategies for achieving its vision.  Only then can the likes of Measures E and G be evaluated fairly, and in the context of the larger question of how they stack up against competing land uses for the greater good of this region.  Voting is a right but also an opportunity.  So vote on November 6 if for no other reason than to protect and preserve the Mission Valley property until its future uses clearly will contribute to advancing the quality of life for future generations of all citizens, not just the parochial interests of private developers or consumed by just one of the many outstanding universities in this region, most if not all of which need additional land for future expansion.