A Broken Vow May Doom Naming Center for Dr. King

In a decision that many believe will doom the effort to rename the San Diego Convention Center for the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., Port Commissioner Daniel Larsen said Thursday that he has reversed his position and will not vote for the tribute to the slain civil rights leader.

Larsen’s statement, which contradicts a public promise of support for the tribute that he made to the San Diego City Council Jan. 17, appears to leave backers of the name change one vote short of a majority on the seven-member Board of Port Commissioners.

“The vast majority of people in San Diego do not want that convention center named after Dr. Martin Luther King,” Larsen said in an interview. “They’ve made that clear to me by phone, by letter and in public appearance.”

San Diego appointees Larsen, Louis Wolfsheimer and William Rick, and National City appointee Delton Reopelle had publicly pledged to vote for the name change in the months leading up to a controversial Feb. 21 vote at which the commissioners dodged the tribute issue. Unless one of the remaining three commissioners on the San Diego Unified Port District board agrees to support the tribute, the proposal will fall short at any meeting where all seven commissioners are present.

Meeting in June or July

The San Diego City Council voted, 7 to 2, in favor of the name change Jan. 10, but the proposal requires the concurrence of both agencies. At the urging of Mayor Maureen O’Connor, Wolfsheimer agreed Tuesday to bring the name-change issue before the commissioners again. He said Thursday that it may be late June or early July before all seven commissioners will be able to attend a meeting and reconsider the issue.

Larsen said he will not vote for any proposal that includes adding King’s name to the title of the $160-million bayfront convention center, despite his public pronouncement at his Jan. 17 reappointment hearing that he would abide by the council’s wish to honor King.

At that meeting, Councilman Bob Filner referred to the council’s vote for the name change and asked Rick and Larsen: “Are you committed to vote that situation, because that’s what the council said?”

“Yes,” Larsen responded, “I’ve already made that statement publicly.”

But Thursday, Larsen contended that “I did not say I would vote that way, I said I would consider it at the time, that I was willing to go with the council’s wishes. But that was before the (Feb. 21) public hearing and all the evidence was presented to me.”

After a tense, racially charged hearing on the issue Feb. 21, the port commissioners did not vote on the council’s name change proposal, deciding by a 4-3 vote to propose the creation of an “Avenue of Honors” on the convention center’s bayfront terrace and to induct King as its first honoree.

Issue Divided the City

Joining Larsen in favor of that proposal were Imperial Beach’s Milford Portwood, Chula Vista’s Robert Penner and Coronado’s Raymond Burk.

The racially and politically sensitive issue of how to honor King has divided the city since the council’s 1986 decision to rename Market Street as “Martin Luther King Way.” Voters in 1987 overwhelmingly approved a referendum stripping King’s name from the downtown boulevard and returning its original name.

A committee appointed by the council last year suggested naming the convention center for King, setting in motion the controversy that has smoldered throughout this year and created the threat of another referendum by a citizens group opposed to the idea.

Wolfsheimer and Reopelle said Thursday that they still plan to reflect the wishes of their city councils. No other port commissioners could be reached for comment.

But Councilman Wes Pratt, leader of the effort to honor King, said Thursday that he believes no other commissioner will add his support to the tribute. “Their minds are made up,” he said. “I’m convinced of that.”

Filner, who participated in 1960’s “freedom rides” to desegregate the South and strongly supported the tribute, called for Larsen to resign.

“I can’t believe that, after making that formal commitment in response to a direct question, that he could say that now,” Filner said. “My own feeling is that, if he can’t follow the direction of the City Council on this matter . . . he ought to resign.”

Under state law, the City Council cannot direct its appointed port commissioners to vote in certain ways, and cannot remove them simply for failing to follow through on a political promise. Removal from the commission is justified only in cases of malfeasance or some other violation, said City Atty. John Witt.