How should you vote on Proposition J on Nov. 8?
According to the mayor’s office, you should vote yes because Prop. J’s passage would extend Mission Bay Regional Park’s lease as well as increase the amount of lease revenue available to the park over time, as well as streamline the process for completing prioritized capital improvement projects there.
But former City Council members Donna Frye and Ed Harris are asking voters to look more deeply into the ballot proposal, which would change the current allocation of lease revenue derived from city-owned property in Mission Bay Park. They insist Prop. J is flawed and sets a bad precedent for the regional park. They argue the measure’s passage will open the back door to more commercial development — perhaps even a hotel — which arguably violates the intent of planners seeking to preserve Mission Bay Park in its natural state.
And a lot of money is at stake, an estimated $1.4 billion over the 30-year proposed lease extension from 2040 to 2069, which Prop. J is requesting.
The measure was vetted at Pacific Beach Town Council’s Sept. 21 meeting, where representatives from the city and the mayor’s office squared off against Frye and Harris.
Katherine Johnston of the mayor’s office defended Prop. J claiming it will have a positive impact.
“Prop. J funding guarantees the wetlands restoration,” Johnston said. “We also think it will accelerate (parks) projects. Changing the language in the (city) charter will allow us to build playground projects, do sidewalk repairs, etc.”
Johnston said now-mayor and then-City Councilman Kevin Faulconer supported Prop. C in 2008, Prop. J’s precursor, because “he wanted (lease) revenues generated in Mission Bay Park to stay in Mission Bay Park, rather than being transferred to the (city’s) general fund.”
At the September PBTC meeting, Christiana Gauger, city fiscal and policy analyst, said the whole idea behind lease revenue at Mission Bay was to “have this beautiful public park allowing 25 percent of that park to be used for commercial leaseholds,” and that revenues generated would be “used to pay for public park improvements. That was not happening. The public, in their infinite wisdom, said ‘We think we need more than City Council policy to protect Mission Bay Park.'”
A report from the Office of the Independent Budget Analyst concluded that, If Prop. J is approved, “the greater of $3.5 million, or 35 percent, of Mission Bay lease revenue, more than $20 million, would be allocated to the City’s Regional Parks Improvement Fund with all remaining funds allocated to the Mission Bay Park Improvement Fund … This measure would also clarify the process for completing prioritized capital improvement projects in Mission Bay Park, and allow the City to undertake these improvements concurrently … Additionally, this measure would extend the restricted use of annual Mission Bay lease revenue taking it higher than $20 million for 30 more years from the current expiration of 2039 to 2069. Without this extension, all Mission Bay lease revenue would become unrestricted and available for general public services in 2040.”
Arguing lease revenues generated in Mission Bay Park were largely diverted for decades to other city uses, despite assurances funds would be used to make public park improvements, Frye noted Prop. C was passed in 2008 with Faulconer’s support. She pointed out that measure amended the City Charter to require 75 percent of lease revenues over $20 million to be used for Mission Bay Park and the other 25 percent would be used for other regional parks.
“Now less than 10 years later, and with no projects completed, Mayor Kevin Faulconer reverses course and plans to raid the very funds he promised to protect,” said Frye asking,”So what does Measure J do?”
So what’s the problem? asks Frye.
“First, no priority projects have been completed or fully funded,” she said. “Second, we do not know how much money the MBP priority projects will cost. Third, Measure J changes the definition of Mission Bay Park without ever really explaining what that could mean to the public. Fourth, Measure J was rushed to the ballot. Local community planning groups were not informed about the plans either. Finally, there are concerns about the mayor’s proposal to issue bonds for other parks. How would the interest on those bonds be paid and what are the financial impacts on Mission Bay Park projects? Brian Curry, chair of Pacific Beach Planning Group, said “Measure J is a back-door attempt by the mayor to move lease revenues/income generating in Mission Bay out of Mission Bay. The mayor wants to fund other pet projects, such as an underground parking garage in Balboa Park, and needs the money.
Curry’s convinced J “directly conflicts with then- Councilmember Faulconer’s previous position when he co-sponsored (w/Frye), Measure C, keeping money generating in Mission Bay in Mission Bay. Further, a provision in Measure J would allow for more commercialization of Mission Bay, again in violation of the public’s preference for public rather than private use.”
Curry said Prop. J “was was put on the ballot at the last minute without any public review or scrutiny. Those of us opposed did not even have time to formulate an ‘argument against’ write-up for the sample ballot. The beach communities have incredible difficulty getting funding for many public projects. Now the Mayor wants more of the funds that should remain in Mission Bay.”
Lifeguard and former Councilman Harris fears one aspect of Prop. J potentially could be extremely impactful for public parks — in the negative.
“My understanding is the (charter) language change allows for (park) expansion through the acquisition of contiguous space — that will cause the most damage,” contends Harris. “If J passes, we may see a future hotel on parkland that is getting harder and harder to come by. This will be bad for the taxpayers. Bill Evans (hotelier) came out and said about a year ago that he wanted to build another hotel. Now we’re (voters) seeing the path. Mission Bay Park is a family jewel. We need to protect that for our kids.”