Football stadium proposal among 12 on City of San Diego Nov. 8 ballot
Rancho Bernardans and other city residents will be voting on 12 city measures, in addition to two county measures and 17 statewide propositions on their Nov. 8 ballot.
Some city measures — such as C, the downtown stadium initiative — have attracted a lot of attention as supporters and opponents voice their views. Other measures — such as M, which would increase affordable housing in certain areas — have no stated opposition in ballot materials.
Measures are in alphabetical order.
* * * * *
Measure C is the downtown stadium initiative. It needs support from two-thirds (66.7 percent) of voters, though that could be lowered to a majority (more than 50 percent) due to legal issues currently before the California Supreme Court.
Due to the citizen initiative’s length, a supplemental pamphlet with the text is being mailed to voters. It can also be viewed at sdvote.com/en/measure-c.pdf. It was placed on the ballot by the City Council after voter signatures qualified it for the ballot.
Voters are deciding if the city’s hotel occupancy tax should be increased by 6 percent (from 10.5 percent to 16.5 percent) in order to build a city-owned downtown professional football stadium and convention center. Money would also go toward tourism marketing. The measure requires a $650,000 contribution and 30-year commitment by a professional football entity — the San Diego Chargers are not specifically named, but the team is the measure’s proponent; Tourism Marketing District assessments would end and there would be impacts to land use, sign and zoning laws.
Per the city attorney’s impartial analysis, the citizens’ initiative would amend the city’s Downtown Community Plan and San Diego Municipal Code in order to develop, finance, manage and use a 10-block area east of Petco Park for the 65,000 seat stadium (expandable to 75,000 seats) and 385,000-square-foot convention center separate from the existing center.
It is estimated the facility will cost $1.8 billion, with the Chargers and NFL providing $650 million, the estimated stadium construction cost. The city’s transient occupancy tax is projected to pay the $200 million needed for land acquisition, $600 million for convention center construction and $350 million for construction of the integrated joint use portion. These amounts are estimates and could be higher.
Proponents, including former mayor and now San Diego Regional Chamber of Commerce President & CEO Jerry Sanders, say the complex will be “more than a football stadium” since it will be a multi-use facility that will serve as an expanded convention center, Chargers stadium and “world-class” events center. They claim “no new or increased taxes will be imposed on San Diego residents” since it is hotel taxes paid by visitors that will fund what the Chargers and NFL does not. They also say no money will come from the city’s general fund.
Opponents, including City Councilmen David Alvarez and Chris Cate, call it “a bad deal for San Diego.” They say it raises taxes by more than $1 billion, which should be spent on street repairs, safety and after-school programs. They say it does not require any new parking or traffic improvements, cite independent analyses that project the public contribution to be $2.3 billion over 30 years since the proposed hotel tax increase might not cover costs, and claim the measure threatens San Diego’s tourism economy and jobs.
* * * * *
Measure D, also placed on the ballot by the City Council after voter signatures qualified it, would increase San Diego’s hotel occupancy tax up to 5 percent, end the Tourism Marketing District, let hoteliers create assessment districts and use the generated taxes for a downtown convention center, but not a stadium. It would prohibit a contiguous expansion of the existing convention center, create a downtown overlay zone for convention and sports facilities and allow the 166-acre city-owned Qualcomm stadium property to be sold for educational and park uses.
It needs support from two-thirds (66.7 percent) of voters, though that threshold could be lowered to a majority (more than 50 percent) due to legal issues currently before the California Supreme Court. Due to its length, the text is being included in a supplemental pamphlet and can be viewed at sdvote.com/en/measure-d.pdf.
Proponents, including former City Councilwoman Donna Frye and state Senator Marty Block, say the city’s hotel tax rate is below rates charged by competing cities. This results in higher hotel profits while the tourism industry “escapes paying its fair share for streets, sidewalks, public safety and other amenities that serve visitors and are important to our quality of life.” They also claim it will protect local resources, prevent a 6,000-unit condo plan and prevent taxpayer money going to a stadium and arena.
Opponents, including City Councilman Scott Sherman and San Diego County Taxpayers Association Chairman Greg Stein, say it could affect Comic-Con remaining in San Diego because the organization supports a contiguous, expanded convention center, which the measure “specifically prohibits.” They say it will eliminate the Tourism Marketing District which promotes the city and brings in tourists from around the world, has been “crafted in secret by special interests, a few self-serving hoteliers and downtown insiders” and puts taxpayers at risk due to the likely years of legal challenges.
* * * * *
Measure E is a charter amendment regarding qualifications, vacancy and removal for mayor, city attorney and council. It can pass with over 50 percent of voter support.
Its provisions include a requirement that the city attorney have been licensed to practice law in California for 10 years when seeking office; details who performs which duties, including when an elective office is vacant; adds felony conviction and physical or mental incapacity as new grounds for vacancy; adds a section providing for the removal of elective officers for dereliction of duty or malfeasance in office by special election; and provides a uniform procedure for filling vacancies for the above named offices.
Per the city attorney’s impartial analysis, “This measure was drafted after the San Diego County Grand Jury issued a report outlining the San Diego Charter’s lack of a procedure to remove elective officers, other than by voter-initiated recall.”
Measure E is unanimously supported by the City Council, San Diego Regional Chamber of Commerce, League of Women Voters and San Diego County Taxpayers Association. No arguments against it were filed with the city clerk.
* * * * *
Measure F is a charter amendment that would reduce the number of years of service necessary before a deputy city attorney can only be terminated or suspended for good cause, with certain charter-listed exceptions. It needs more than 50 percent to pass.
The “good cause” protection would be lowered from two years to one and does not apply to layoffs due to lack of work or lack of funding. It was proposed by the City Council.
Proponents, including Council President Sherri Lightner, say Measure F “will help attract and retain good lawyers for the city by ensuring the City Attorney’s office remains independent and non-political.” It is supported by the City Council, Deputy City Attorney’s Association, San Diego County Taxpayers Association and League of Women Voters. No opposition argument was filed with the city clerk.
* * * * *
Measure G is a charter amendment that, if passed, would rename the Citizens’ Review Board on Police Practices to the Community Review Board on Police Practices, replace references to “city manager” with “mayor and city council,” and require the board to review all deaths occurring while someone is in the custody of the San Diego Police Department and all police-related shootings.
It requires more than 50 percent support to pass.
According to ballot information, the board was created in 1988 to independently review and evaluate citizen complaints against members of the SDPD and its administration of discipline arising from such complaints. The board presently reviews in-custody deaths and officer-related shootings by agreement with SDPD. The measure would require such reviews.
Mayor Kevin Faulconer and City Councilmembers Todd Gloria and Myrtle Cole are among its proponents. They claim it “will increase public confidence in government and the accountability of law enforcement by conducting impartial and independent investigations of citizen complaints of misconduct concerning the San Diego Police Department.”
They also say it will improve communication between the department and community, increase police accountability and credibility with the public, and create a transparent complaint review process that is free from bias and informed of actual police practices. No opposition was filed with the city clerk.
* * * * *
Measure H would amend the city charter so it repeals and consolidates into one section several provisions related to purchasing and contracting for the city. These include contracts for public works, goods, services and consultants being awarded through a competitive process. It would remove the position of purchasing agent and the designation of an official city newspaper to be used to meet publishing requirements. It requires more than 50 percent support to pass.
The latter part is projected to save the city money, which in fiscal year 2016 was around $54,000, since public hearings could be noticed on the online city bulletin instead of a daily newspaper.
Supporters include Mayor Kevin Faulconer, the City Council, San Diego County Taxpayers Association, San Diego Regional Chamber of Commerce and League of Women Voters. They say the city’s purchasing and contracting activities will have “simple, easy to understand rules” and save the city time and money by eliminating conflict of interest by elected officials and city staffers, bring the city’s rules in line with the state’s and give city departments greater flexibility in how they procure goods and services. They say it will prevent problems that occurred when some major public works projects were not completed on time or on budget after going to the lowest bidding contractors.
No opponents filed with the city clerk.
* * * * *
Measure I asks if the City Charter should be amended so dedicated park property in Balboa Park can be leased to San Diego Unified School District if used for a public high school. Doing so would allow San Diego High School to remain where it has been located for 134 years. Its lease expires in 2024. The measure requires more than 50 percent support to pass.
Proponents, including Mayor Kevin Faulconer, say ending the lease would displace more than 2,000 students and cost taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars to construct another high school plus demolish the existing campus.
Opponents, including Bruce Coons of the Save Our Heritage Organisation and David Lundin of the Balboa Park Heritage Association, say the 34 acres used by the high school should be restored to park use. They say this gives away city land to San Diego Unified and eliminates City Charter protections for dedicated park lands.
* * * * *
Measure J would amend the City Charter so the allocation of annual Mission Bay Park lease revenues exceeding $20 million is increased from 25 to 35 percent for capital improvements in San Diego Regional Parks (reducing the difference from the Mission Bay Park fund), let the City Council add city-owned parkland to Mission Bay Park’s boundaries, plus combine and coordinate construction of identified Mission Bay Park improvements through 2069. The measure requires more than 50 percent support to pass.
The Regional Parks fund would be used for capital improvements at Balboa Park, Chollas Lake Park, Mission Trails Regional Park, Otay River Valley Park, Presidio Park, San Diego River Park, open space parks, coastal beaches and contiguous coastal parks and future parks.
Per its fiscal impact statement, “Without this extension, all Mission Bay lease revenue would become unrestricted and available for general public services in 2040. ... total projected revenue for Mission Bay Park and Regional Parks under the proposed extension from 2040 to 2069 is roughly $1.4 billion.”
Supporters include Mayor Kevin Faulconer, City Councilmembers Todd Gloria and Lorie Zapf, Paul Robinson (Mission Bay Park Committee) and Betty Peabody (Friends of Balboa Park).
No opponents filed with the city clerk.
* * * * *
Measure K is a charter amendment that would require a run-off election in November for the offices of mayor, city attorney and councilmember even if a candidate receives a majority of votes in the June primary. It requires more than 50 percent support to pass.
It would increase the cost of the city’s November elections. Per ballot information, “Had this measure been in effect during the past four election cycles in 2008, 2010, 2012 and 2014, election costs would have increased between $30,000 and $260,000 in each election. A similar range of increased costs in future elections could be anticipated.”
Proponents, including City Council President Sherri Lightner and San Diego Taxpayers Advocate President Scott Barnett, say it ensures city leaders are elected by a majority of voters since more voters go to the polls in November than June. They claim it will ensure city leaders are accountable to a majority of those they represent instead of to special interest groups.
Opponents, including Mayor Kevin Faulconer and Councilmembers Chris Cate, Scott Sherman and Lorie Zapf, say additional elections will cost taxpayers millions, the measure does not guarantee more voter interest and was “rushed without sufficient public input or community outreach.”
* * * * *
Measure L is a charter amendment that would require qualified citizens’ initiative and referendum measures to be submitted to voters on the next November general election ballot and not a June primary unless the City Council chooses to submit the measure to voters prior to the November election. This would not apply to measures initiated by city officials or a Charter Review Commission. It requires more than 50 percent support to pass.
Supporters, including Council President Sherri Lightner and San Diego Taxpayers Advocate President Scott Barnett, say it ensures important city decision are made by a majority of voters, decreases the power of special interests and protects taxpayers.
No opponents filed with the city clerk.
* * * * *
Measure M concerns affordable housing. It would increase by 38,680 housing units the limit on units the city and certain public agencies are allowed to help develop, construct or acquire for people with low incomes. The measure requires more than 50 percent support to pass.
The agencies include the city, the city’s Housing Authority and the San Diego Housing Commission. Previous increases were approved by voters in 1972, 1976, 1981 and 2002. The total limit is currently 10,500 units and of these, a little over 3,200 remain. The selected number of 38,680 additional affordable housing units is what is projected to be needed in the city by 2020 for those earning low and very low incomes.
The measure would not raise taxes, authorize expending any funds, nor require or approve the development of specific affordable housing units.
Supporters include City Councilman Todd Gloria, Mayor Kevin Faulconer and Haney Hong, president and CEO of the San Diego County Taxpayers’ Association. They say this would help alleviate the shortage of affordable housing for low-income families, military veterans, seniors and individuals with disabilities.
No opponents filed with the city clerk.
* * * * *
Measure N would let the city impose a gross receipts tax, for general revenue purposes, on non-medical marijuana if also on Nov. 8 California voters approve Proposition 64, which would legalize recreational marijuana in the state. The initial tax would be at 5 percent, go up to 8 percent in July 2019 and could eventually be raised to 15 percent. It requires more than 50 percent support to pass.
The fiscal impact is not yet known due to unknown factors, such as the number of non-medical cannabis (marijuana) businesses permitted by the city and rate the industry develops, consumer demand for recreational marijuana within the region and availability in neighboring jurisdictions, plus its price, which may change over time. For illustrative purposes, the fiscal impact statement in ballot materials compares San Diego to Denver (where marijuana is legal), and projects an initial potential $22 million in annual revenue. Administrative costs are estimated at $650,000 annually.
Proponents include City Councilman Mark Kersey and Council President Sherri Lightner, who call the measure “fiscally responsible, timely and prudent” since it protects the city budget from any new costs associated with marijuana legalization and protects resources for streets, sidewalks, parks, police and firefighters.
Opponents, including Pacific Beach Town Council President Cathie Jolley, say the tax money will go into the general fund and not support code and law enforcement actions or DUI prevention, treatment programs or student prevention education. They say the city “should not legitimize the sale, manufacture, unregulated neighborhood cultivation of pot, and marijuana advertising ... in a cynical scheme to profit from the recreational use of marijuana.”
Email: rbnews@pomeradonews.com