Many who came to Pacific Beach Town Council’s Sept. 21 meeting on Proposition J, a November ballot charter amendment regarding use of Mission Bay Park lease revenue, expected to hear it praised, not panned.
But what they got was a full-blown debate over it instead of a rubber-stamping, with much of the proposition being questioned – if not outright objected to – by several critics, including two former District 2 city council members.
Proposition J, if passed Nov. 8, would change the current allocation of lease revenue derived from city-owned property in Mission Bay Park. Currently, 25 percent of $2.5 million of Mission Bay lease revenue, more than $20 million, goes to the City’s Regional Parks Improvement Fund. All remaining funds are then allocated to the Mission Bay Park Improvement Fund.
Additionally, the measure would clarify the process for completing prioritized capital improvements. Prop. J would also extend restricted use of annual Mission Bay lease revenue more than $20 million for an additional 30 years from the current expiration of 2039 to 2069.
Where the biggest concern lies though, is one aspect of the proposition which calls for contiguous land parcels to be added to Mission Bay Regional Park, which some suspect could be used to further commercialize the bay front, perhaps opening the door for a future hotel.
“Right now with Mission Bay lease revenues, the first $20 million goes to the city’s general fund, and with anything above and beyond that, 25 percent of the remainder goes to regional parks,” Christiana Gauger, a city fiscal and policy analyst, told PBTC. “After that, the rest of it goes to Mission Bay.”
Should Prop. J pass and Mission Bay Park’s lease is extended another 30 years, Gauger said the city estimates that more than “$1 billion will go to regional parks, with the lion’s share of that going to Mission Bay.”
But there were skeptics of the plan, including former District 2 council members Donna Frye and Ed Harris. The pair urged PBTC and local voters to take a much closer look at the proposition. They argued it may have loopholes in that could bring unintended consequences.
“The idea behind Mission Bay Park was that we would have this beautiful public park and we would allow 25 percent of that park to be used by commercial leaseholders, and the rest had to be used for the public,” Frye said. “A yes vote on this ballot measure will incorporate those limits into the City Charter, which currently limits commercial development to one hotel, that can only be changed by a two-thirds vote of the people.”
But Frye contended that language in Prop. J subtly changes “the definition of what Mission Bay Park is.” She argued Prop. J, when read carefully, would allow city-owned property that is contiguous to Mission Bay Park to be added to it.
“To me, this (language) change means that, for every acre of new contiguous land added to Mission Bay Park, that 25 percent of that could be developed for commercial leases,” Frye said. “We all need to think about how this measure might increase the total acreage available for commercial development above what is currently allowed.”
Immediate past District 2 Counci man Ed Harris concurred with Frye.
Noting he “had a hard time finding stuff on Prop. J,” Harris said “this is about another hotel on Mission Bay. If we (public) don’t get involved … we’re going to lose Mission Bay, and Rose Creek and Tecolote Canyon.”
Katherine Johnston from the mayo’r office defended Prop. J arguing it will be good for the community and increase long-term funding available for parks as well as allow multiple park projects to be done concurrently, something difficult now because of prescriptive language Prop. J is seeking to change.
“We think Prop. J would increase park funding to do thinks like wetlands restoration,” Johnston said.
“The Measure (J) does not make that clear,” responded Karin Zirk, an environmentalist and Friends of Rose Creek volunteer.
“This all sounds great, but how much of that (lease revenue) money would stay in Mission Bay?” asked Pacific Beach Planning Board chair Brian Curry.
“One-third of revenues in Mission Bay Park comes from SeaWorld and they’re in (financial) trouble,” noted community activist Scott Chipman, adding, “taking out a bond measure is a lot like the mortgage on your house. That’s not free money. We have to pay that back, way more than we borrowed. And finally, how can we really trust the mayor after what we’ve seen happen on the boardwalk (allowing DecoBike bikeshare stations)?”