Court Ruling: Scam Diego’s Convention Center Expansion Is (And Should Be) Toast
Almost, I’ve always been told, only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades.
San Diego’s reputation for stupidity in the public arena was affirmed once again this week as Superior Court Judge Kenneth J Medel ruled against the most recent chapter of an elaborate charade staged by downtown hoteliers and local politicians to circumvent election laws in order to fund expansion of the Convention Center.
For the time being (I’m betting on an appeal), a decade-long effort to finance a project primarily benefiting a specific group of private interests using tax dollars has ground to a halt.
You know what would be great for the people of San Diego? If our government and big business interests played by the rules. This decision is just the latest example of how cheaters never really win in the long run.
Between the money squandered on failed homeless efforts, the asbestos office tower at 101 Ash Street, and the Convention Center, the city could have actually gotten something done.
This expansion of the Convention Center effort has been on shaky legal grounds through all its iterations, starting with a special election in 2012 allowing only hoteliers to vote to impose a tax and authorize bonds to expand the facility.
At the time the city government had already committed to spend money ($15.8 million) on the project based on the notion that the legally questionable tax would be enacted.
Two years later, the courts found the City’s hotelier-only election as unconstitutional. The $4 million already paid towards additional land acquisition for the Convention Center needed to be reimbursed from the general fund.
In 2016 San Diego voters –by nearly a two to one margin– passed Measure L, mandating that the City Council place citizen’s initiatives on November ballots. This came to pass upon the realization that special interest groups were manipulating the process via primary & special elections to take advantage of lower turnout and voter interest.
There was, however, one loophole: in case of emergency the council could schedule measures for consideration during other elections. The thinking was this was an escape hatch should emergency funding be required in the aftermath of a natural disaster.
Little did we know this escape hatch might get used for a political disaster.
In the spring of 2018, a private coalition sought to qualify a tax and bond measure to finance Convention Center expansion. Despite packaging it alongside funding for homeless services, they failed to get enough signatures in time to qualify for the November general election.
Having said that expansion was his highest priority, Mayor Kevin Faulconer rushed his version of the coalition’s measure to the City Council. They said nope, we need more time to study it.
Hizzoner was furious, issuing a statement (and probably wagging his finger) saying “The City Council talks a big game about making our city better but when it came time for action all we heard were excuses.”
Had the mayor succeeded with the council, the proposed measure would have required two thirds voter approval to pass. A court ruling seemed to open the door (there were appeals) for citizen-led initiatives to pass with a simple majority, so the private coalition pressed on, hoping for a shot at November 2020.
“For a Better San Diego” got the opportunity to play the lower voter turnout game when the City Council decided it was that important. (There was no specific language in Measure L regarding what an “emergency” was)
Despite community opposition, led by Alliance San Diego, Measure C was placed on the ballot for the March 2020 primary election. The ballot language specifically said the initiative needed at least 66.67% of the vote to pass.
The measure almost made it to the two thirds mark, garnering 65.24% of the vote.
Almost, I’ve always been told, only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades. The City Council didn’t see it that way. They got all Trumpy about certifying the election.
On April 7, 2020, the City Council refused to declare the results of Measure C, as required by state law. Then council president Georgette Gomez, along with councilmembers Dr. Jenn Campbell, Chris Cate, Chris Ward, and Mark Kersey voted to strike language from a draft resolution prepared by staff stating that Measure C had been defeated.
Councilmembers Monica Montgomery, Vivian Moreno and Barbara Bry voted against striking the language.
Alliance San Diego, along with voters Isidro D. Ortiz and Michael W. McConnell, sued, declaring that election manipulation is an insidious action that erodes voter faith and trust in democracy.
Yesterday Judge Medel ruled the San Diego City Council “had no authority to delay its declaration of the results of the Measure C election or to contradict the City Clerk’s certified results in that declaration.”
From the Alliance San Diego press release:
Alliance San Diego brought this suit because the City Council broke the trust of voters. Their action to manipulate the election represents a dangerous disregard and disrespect for voters and for the integrity of the electoral process. Election integrity and voter trust are vitally important to ensure we have an inclusive democracy that works for all of us. Alliance San Diego will continue to fight for voters to ensure that all of us have a say in our future, and that voters decide elections, not politicians.
Dr. Isidro D. Ortiz, ASD Board President, voter and petitioner, said:This kind of election manipulation is what the civil rights movement sought to overcome. We fought to protect the peoples’ right to decide elections without interference and without foul play. In a democracy, it is the people who should decide elections. Not politicians. We cannot expect voters to trust the electoral process if there is no integrity to elections. Integrity is all about following the agreed upon rules, not bending them or disrespecting voters. We are grateful that the judge sided with voters.
Michael McConnell, voter, and petition, said: San Diego City Leaders need to start tackling our biggest issues in a way that builds trust, not erodes it. Many voters and taxpayers like me have lost trust in our city leaders because of moves like this. I will continue fighting for fair and honest elections in our City.
Andrea Guerrero, executive director of Alliance San Diego, also a petitioner, said: We are thrilled about the court’s decision. This election was over more than a year ago. It was over when the City Clerk certified the decision that voters had made. This case is about power taken by the San Diego City Council. But in a democracy, power resides in the people, not the politicians, and it is the people who decide elections. This case affirms that principle.
I, too, am thrilled about this decision. If the city’s hoteliers really want an expanded convention center, let them pay for it. (They’d be better off skipping the square footage and adding more fiber optic cable.)
As I (and others) have said all along, the need for bigger facilities and their economic viability is questionable. Yes, there will be mega-events. No, there don’t need to be singular facilities to host them.
That said, I recognize the iconic nature and cultural importance of San Diego’s Convention Center. We need to host and have events that excite the imagination, provide recreation, and generate commerce. Good people work there.
Lessons learned during the pandemic indicate future conventions will likely be hybrid mechanisms of live and virtual engagement. The benefits of hybrid events are irresistible: inclusivity, higher participation, low environmental impact and safety.
The most successful of these new wave events are those where it’s not just talking heads for audiences who wander among exhibition booths during down time. It’s time to look at a future where more square footage isn’t the default when it comes to expansion.
Email me at WritetoDougPorter@Gmail.com