Would the possibility of a brand-new Chargers stadium sway city voters to approve an initiative that would open up a major terminal at the San Diego Bay — an area traditionally controlled by the Unified Port of San Diego — to private development? A superior court judge will decide today, Sept. 4, whether voters will see the Tenth Avenue Marine Terminal redevelopment initiative on the November ballot. The area in question is on the bay near the end of Harbor Drive. Voter approval of the initiative could result in a world-class stadium, restaurants, hotels and other private developments built at the terminal traditionally used for marine industry and freight, according to supporters. The Board of Port Commissioners, however, has filed suit to stop the redevelopment initiative from reaching the ballot box, according to Port officials. The California State Lands Commission has also joined the legal battle backing the Port. The commission filed a brief with the court Tuesday, Aug. 26 opposing the redevelopment initiative. The document says Port tidelands belong to the state of California to be held in “Public Trust” under the exclusive management of the Unified Port of San Diego and cannot be privately developed. “…[I]f the initiative process was allowed to amend the Port’s master plan, that would undercut the legislative intent to have the port be the exclusive [manager],” said Mario De Bernardo, staff legal counsel for the State Lands Commission. The three-member commission in charge of port tidelands comprises John Garamendi, the state lieutenant governore; John Chiang, state controller; and Mike Genest, California director of finance. The commission oversees operation of “sovereign lands” such as the Tenth Avenue terminal. Such lands include public lakes and rivers, which should be used for public purposes such as marine commerce, ecological preservation and scientific study, De Bernardo said. With the State Lands Commission behind them, Port officials are trying to stop the initiative while at the same time preparing for a ballot-box battle in the event they lose today’s court decision. The Board of Port Commissioners voted 5-0 on Aug 19 to change the potential ballot language of the proposal to give it “fair and impartial” representation, according to statement from the port. A group of businesses requested the language change to comply with state elections law, according to a Unified Port of San Diego spokesman. The new language adopted by the port to appear on a November ballot now reads: “Shall the San Diego Unified Port District Master Plan be amended to require commercial development of the Tenth Avenue Marine Terminal on an approximately 96-acre maritime cargo complex located on the waterfront near downtown San Diego, south of the Convention Center and north of the San Diego-Coronado Bay Bridge?” It cost the Port of San Diego about $435,000 to place the initiative on the ballot, according to the statement. The Unified Port of San Diego Board of Port Commissioners filed a lawsuit Aug. 5 to stop the measure — formally known as the Port of San Diego Marine Freight Preservation and Bayfront Redevelopment Initiative — from reaching the ballot. A superior court judge rejected the move, slating the court date to hear detailed arguments, a Port of San Diego representative said. The board opposes the redevelopment initiative because it would create lower-wage jobs and may disrupt port operations near the end of Harbor Drive, according to Marguerite Elicone, a spokeswoman for the Unified Port of San Diego. Elicone said developments could indirectly affect more than 45,000 jobs on and near the port. The Port of San Diego directly employs about 850 people at the terminal with an average salary of about $55,000 a year, she said. Elicone added that the initiative could also open up the area to future private developments, creating a “cloud of uncertainty” over future port uses. “[The initiative] will force us to change the port’s master plan, which states that the area is only supposed to be maritime-related use, so we’ll have private developers there putting in anything they want [if the initiative passes],” Elicone said. But according to Frank Gallagher, a principal member of the group proposing the initiative, the change to the port’s master plan would potentially allow for a new Chargers stadium and private developments that would create thousands of jobs and generate enough tax revenue to “possibly eliminate the [city’s] pension-fund deficit” at no cost to the public. “The bottom line, the fundamental issue here, is whether the voters get to decide what happens to land they own,” Gallagher said. “[The initiative process] is a mechanism by which the voters can tell their elected officials what to do.” Gallagher is a managing partner of San Diego Community Solutions, LLC, the company behind the initiative. The company turned in about 60,000 signatures to the San Diego County registrar of voters. They needed about 34,000 valid voter signatures to have the initiative on the November ballot. The Unified Port of San Diego would have to pay for the signature verification, estimated to be about $10,000, said Deborah Sieler, registrar for San Diego County. While the public battle over the future over the Tenth Avenue Terminal operations would have consequences for the city’s economy, no precise plans have been put forward and developments are still years away, according to Gallagher. “If you like the idea of keeping the Chargers [in San Diego] and paying off the pension fund, then vote yes. If you don’t, then vote no,” Gallagher said. “We’re not recommending any one of those [individual elements] be built, but these are all options that can or would be built,” he said. The Tenth Avenue Terminal is one of two main terminals of the Port of San Diego, with the other in National City, officials said. Created in 1962, the Port Authority is governed by a seven-member Board of Port Commissioners appointed by each of the city councils of Chula Vista, Coronado, Imperial Beach and National City. San Diego City Council appoints three commissioners. For more information visit www.portofsandiego.org/.