San Diego Bay marine terminal union workers get up early on Saturdays. They go door to door as part of a campaign to stop a local development company from changing the way this major San Diego Bay terminal operates. Brian Whatley, president of the International Longshore and Warehouse Union Local 29, said the redevelopment initiative, in the form of Proposition B on the November ballot, would threaten about 400 jobs the local chapter represents. The initiative put forward by San Diego Community Solutions, LLC, would change the port’s master plan to allow commercial developments such as hotels and restaurants on port-controlled tidelands. Plans would include building a deck above the area — possibly including a sports stadium or arena. The Tenth Avenue Marine Terminal lies near the end of Harbor Drive. But union workers fear the repercussions of such a development. According to Whatley, the average annual pay for a longshore union worker can range from $90,000 to $120,000. That includes overtime, employment benefits and salary, he said. The union organized the door-to-door campaign against Proposition B at a cost of about $20,000 so far, he said. Longshore union workers move large equipment, including windmills, propeller parts and steel cargo, Whatley said. Physical restrictions accompanying redevelopment would interrupt work. Port officials have said more than 45,000 jobs could be indirectly affected by the initiative. “It’s just not possible for us to load the type of cargo that we do… with a 40-foot deck above us. You just can’t move that type of equipment around,” he said. Over the last few months, pro­ponents of the redevelopment initiative were able to gather the 60,000 signatures needed to begin the initiative process. The Port of San Diego would also have to pay the estimated $10,000 to verify the signatures. Port officials, local union workers and some businesses have joined together against the proposed change under the banner of “Save our Working Waterfront.” The group is made up of Port Tenants Association members and others opposed to the measure. Frank Gallagher, a principal partner in the redevelopment company backing the initiative, said redevelopment would add more jobs, not threaten them. And with the possibility of a brand-new sports venue, hotels and hospitality industry business attracting tourists, opening up the terminal to private development would also bring lots of tax and rent money into city coffers at no cost to the public, he said. “These are supportive uses that would be allowed on this terminal so long as they didn’t conflict with priority use,” Gallagher said in a recent interview. There are no solid plans, however, depicting what exactly would be built, he said. A superior court judge ruled in September that San Diego voters would decide in November whether a private firm can re­develop about 100 acres of terminal now under the control of the Port of San Diego. An appellate court delivered another blow to opponents of the measure a few days later, when the court denied an appeal by the Port of San Diego to stop the initiative from reaching the ballot. The court cited lack of a “clear and compelling” reason to stop it from going to voters, according to court documents. Port officials said they also tried to change the language on the ballot last month because the original ballot language was “misleading.” The appellate court rejected that move as well. Court documents say the text that should now appear on the November ballot would read: “Shall the San Diego Unified Port District’s Master Plan be Amended by the Adoption of ‘The Port of San Diego Marine Freight Preservation and Bayfront Redevelopment Initiative?’” If voters pass the measure, any construction would have to be vetted by the California Coastal Commission, according to a letter from the commission addressed to the Port of San Diego. However, so long as any redevelopment complies with state environmental laws, nothing short of a California Coastal Act violation can stop redevelopment. “Whatever is going to get built there is going to be in compliance with regulations and with the coastal commission…no different than what you already see right across the street from Petco [Park],” Gallagher said. The battle over the bay has been raging in the public arena since the Board of Port Commissioners voted unanimously in May to place the redevelopment initiative after sufficient signatures were gathered to bring the matter to a public vote, according to port officials. The most recent debate between sides took place Friday, Sept. 12 at the Southeastern Economic Development Council’s annual summit. Panelists included Gallagher, representatives of the Imperial Labor Council, port officials and marine industry contractors. To watch a video of the forum or for more information on the initiative, please visit www.portofsandiego.org.