Assembly Bid to Control Border Area Angers San Diegans

Mention the name of Assemblyman Richard Polanco to some of San Diego’s civic leaders, and you get the kind of angry and suspicious reaction reserved for a carpet-bagger.

Mention that attitude to Polanco, a low-profile Democrat from East Los Angeles, and you will hear the unflattering description of misguided locals who are too petty or too proud to admit they need help.

Such are the emotional charges and counter-charges being thrown around in an escalating political struggle over who is going to control the destiny of development at the Mexican border.

Polanco has introduced a bill that would use the power of state government to create a binational border authority to help pay for public projects, especially in debt-ridden Mexico. He says the new authority is needed to break the “petty” governmental deadlock that has allowed problems such as pollution, inadequate water lines and the lack of roads to stifle the economic promise of the border.

But Polanco’s good intentions have raised hackles among San Diego leaders, who argue that his portrayal of the problems is exaggerated. They openly resent the fact that Polanco failed to consult with them first, as well as his insistence on pushing the binational bonding authority in Sacramento against their wishes.

“We don’t think San Diego deserves to be treated in what is a condescending manner,” said Bernice Layton, vice president of international affairs for the Greater San Diego Chamber of Commerce.

“It’s difficult to think that we would not be surprised and taken aback when someone comes down and plunks something down that has nothing to do with San Diego and its structure,” she said. “No alternatives have been explored, except superimposing an agency that would not be accountable to the region.”

Sen. Lucy Killea (D-San Diego) said the reaction to Polanco’s designs on the border are similar to the emotional local opposition engendered by the proposed merger between Southern California Edison and San Diego Gas & Electric.

“It’s touched the same nerve that the merger touched,” said Killea, who lived in Mexico for 15 years while her husband was U.S. consul general to Monterrey and Baja California.

“It’s sort of like, ‘We’re in charge of our own existence and don’t you tell us how to do it!’ We look upon the border as San Diego’s domain. In that sense, it’s kind of a proprietary air, a territorial attitude.”

So stirred up are the San Diegans that, during a Chamber of Commerce excursion to Sacramento last month, a handful of business leaders fanned out in the Capitol to lobby against the Polanco measure. The foray came just three months after several San Diego officials spoke out against the proposed agency at a public hearing Polanco held in San Diego last December.

Polanco said that, besides political considerations, he suspects some of San Diego’s resistance is rooted in back-handed racism.

“I have given thought as to whether or not there are racial overtones, in the sense that I, being a Hispanic legislator, am coming into an area . . . that has problems being contributed to by the Mexican government,” he said. “Here, I bring a solution, because I think that’s what I should be about, and all of a sudden the resistance curtain is being raised.”

The Chamber’s Layton said Polanco’s charges of racism are wrong. “To hear we don’t want anything to do with Mexico is absurd, when this community has a lot of programs to connect us to Mexico,” she said.

Polanco’s bill is actually one of two introduced in the Legislature to create a quasi-governmental body to take over the task of building roads, sewers, water pipes, telecommunications systems and other public improvements along the Mexican border.

The need for such public infrastructure has been underscored by the heady growth of the maquiladora industry. Maquiladora plants use cheap Mexican labor for the assembly and manufacture of goods later sold in the United States or abroad. The goods made in Mexico are brought over to San Diego County at a minimal tariff before being shipped elsewhere.

In all, there are an estimated 1,100 maquiladora plants employing more than 335,000 Mexican workers. About 600 of the plants are in Tijuana, and 40% of those require matching warehouse, distribution or other facilities in San Diego, experts say.

Some maquiladora backers say the industry is an important component of a border and regional economy. They assert that 40% to 60% of the wages earned by maquiladora workers are spent in the United States, and that the companies themselves spend tens of millions in San Diego alone for supplies, taxes and equipment repairs linked directly to their Tijuana plants.

But San Diego is not alone in benefitting from the healthy border economy, says Polanco. The economy is so strong there it sends ripples throughout Southern California and the state, he said. Making sure it stays that way is not the responsibility or domain of anyone group of leaders or community, Polanco contends.

Standing in the way of even greater economic prosperity, some say, is a welter of nuts-and-bolts problems. Jammed border crossings, the dumping of toxic waste, inadequate surface streets, the lack of housing for Mexican workers, an unreliable telephone system just aren’t good for business, they say.

“Even businessmen who usually don’t have a lot of concern about these topics are now very worried that there is such a lack of infrastructure--not only phones and roads, but housing for the workers--and it affects the maquiladora business,” said Gabriel Szekley, acting director of the Center for U.S.-Mexican Studies at UC San Diego.

Until now, those problems have fallen on a patchwork of governmental jurisdictions, which must try to overcome the differences of international styles and priorities to forge a binational solution. Szekley said that even the binational commissions that have been formed to bridge these cultural gaps have failed to cope.

“It does not matter that they may have the authority,” he said. “They have not been doing anything.”

Polanco added: “One city will say this, another city will say, ‘No, that’s not my priority.’ You have one economic development strategy coming from one group, and another strategy coming from another, and nothing happens.”

Last year, the underground frustration over the deadlock reached more than 500 miles north to Sacramento, where the Legislature made some surprise moves to take the problems from local officials in San Diego and Imperial counties.

The first was a bill introduced by Sen. Ken Maddy (R-Fresno) in March, 1989, to establish a border bonding authority that could impose taxes, set tolls and use condemnation powers to supersede local governmental decisions on both sides of the border. There was talk of building a monorail, worker housing or a private border crossing, where tolls would be charged.

As it happened, the backers of the bill were two young Orange County residents--a stockbroker and an attorney--who had formed something called the CABEZA Foundation, a nonprofit organization dedicated to the development of business along the border.

“It was our view that these problems have existed, and you don’t need another $3 million study to study the problem,” said the attorney, Doug Davidson of Irvine. “Anybody who is reasonably acquainted with the border could come up with 15 to 20 of these projects, but the problem is coming up with the dough to take care of them.”

Yet persistent inquiries about the CABEZA Foundation failed to satisfy suspicions among the San Diegans that there was something behind the Orange County interest in their turf. Were Davidson and his partner, stockbroker Sam Palmer IV, fronting for out-of-town businessmen with designs on the border? Did the two have hidden land interests along the border? Did Palmer hope to make money himself by selling the bonds issued by the new border authority?

Davidson and Palmer say there is nothing behind their proposal beside altruism. Yet the nagging questions about the mysterious origins of the bill, along with provisions giving the foundation a measure of control over the new bonding agency, raised enough eyebrows and howls of protest from San Diegans that a frustrated Maddy has allowed his bill to go dormant for now.

However, some of that same suspicion has now washed over to Polanco, who continues to push a nearly identical proposal introduced in November on the Assembly side of the Legislature.

The lawmaker says his measure wasn’t inspired by the CABEZA Foundation, but CABEZA’s Palmer said this week that he is working closely with the Los Angeles Democrat to come up with amendments and keep the ball rolling.

“We’re working together,” said Palmer. “We don’t care that we get it through the Assembly first or the Senate first.”

Polanco and his staff acknowledge that they are consulting with CABEZA, but say his interest in the border was originally piqued by a tour of Mexico’s economic and industrial plants last year.

As it stands now, the Polanco proposal would create a bonding authority run by seven directors--three of them appointed from Mexico and four from California. The directors would be political appointments, but only one would be from the San Diego County Board of Supervisors. Amendments now under consideration would expand the board to nine members, adding one seat from the city of San Diego.

The authority would be restricted to issuing revenue bonds, debt secured and retired by the money taken in from the special projects being built. It could also charge fees and assessments, but it would not have the power of eminent domain--a sore point in the Maddy bill. Charged with respecting local plans, the authority would also be charged with coordinating efforts at all levels of U.S. and Mexican government that have a hand in the border.

Despite these modifications, many San Diego officials remain stridently opposed to the Polanco measure, although a few academics like Szekley say it has generated useful debate on how to promote binational and regional solutions to the border problems.

They argue that it treads in the area of foreign policy; it adds a layer of unaccountable government; it may disturb the delicate border economy with the imposition of additional fees and assessments; it is designed only to help the narrow business interests of maquiladora investors.

The San Diegan’s bottom-line argument, though, is that Polanco’s proposal is simply unnecessary. The problems are either greatly exaggerated or on the brink of being solved after years of persistent effort through existing governmental channels, they say.

For example, there are the nascent plans to build a $130-million to $200-million sewage treatment plant along the border to catch and neutralize the constant flow of effluent spilling out of Tijuana’s antiquated sewers and into the ocean.

After years of jawboning, the federal government is considering a $15.7-million budget request to begin planning the plant. And, at the urging of Assemblyman Steve Peace (D-La Mesa), state leaders have agreed to allow at least a $20-million slice from the next bond package to help pay for the Tijuana plant, as well as a proposed facility to treat the New River flowing out of Mexicali and into the Salton Sea.

And the U.S. Customs Service is planning a third border crossing in San Diego County to alleviate the long waits at the San Ysidro and Otay Mesa checkpoints, they say.

Those developments make Polanco’s proposal “a solution in search of a problem,” said Dan Pegg, president of the San Diego Economic Development Corp. and last year’s chairman of the Border Trade Alliance. “Somebody stands to benefit from it somewhere because they are working so hard against staunch resistance.

“There are a whole lot of players from Orange County and other places whose interests really don’t lie within the region, interjecting themselves into the local planning processes and fee structures, which are already very sensitive and fragile,” said Pegg. “Here you have an (authority) that can suddenly levy tolls and fees . . . that will take us out of the market.”

Other business leaders ask: Why doesn’t Polanco turn his attention to some of the problems plaguing his own district of East Los Angeles?

“People here did not plead with him and say, ‘God, you’ve got to help us do something!’ ” said Layton.

Despite those objections, Polanco says he will hold a hearing in early May to ask for votes to move his proposal along. The idea, he said, was received with some interest when he presented it to Mexican President Carlos Salinas de Gortari at a meeting in Los Angeles last week.

Polanco describes San Diego’s tolerance of the border problems as a variation on the old maxim on how the city works: If it doesn’t happen north of Interstate 8, it’s not important.

“I think a lot of it has to do with the traditional way of things getting done in San Diego,” said Polanco. “If it’s not north of a designated area, then, hey, it’s not going to happen. If it is, then there’s a lot of enthusiasm.

“I have met a lot of people, and I have presented this to many people,” Polanco said. “It isn’t like I’ve come and imposed myself on them. And, even if I did, I have an obligation as an elected representative to bring about remedies to problems of concern.

“So they ought to get off the dime and do away with their pettiness.”