How much of the revenue generated by Mission Bay Park should stay in the park and how much should go to the city? San Diegans will decide on Nov. 4 when they cast their vote for Proposition C. Proponents say the measure is necessary to complete the popular recreational area and uphold the original agreement between the city and San Diegans. Critics call the initiative a money grab that could undermine the city’s fiscal stability and hamstring park development. “The city has raided Mission Bay Park funds for far too long,” Councilman Kevin Faulconer said. “I saw that firsthand as chairman of the Mission Bay Park Committee.” The advisory board has struggled for years to fund the estimated $400 million in capital improvements called for in the Mission Bay Park Master Plan, a blueprint for park development that City Council and the coastal commission approved in 1994. Currently, approximately 90 cents of every dollar generated by SeaWorld and other Mission Bay leaseholds goes to the city. If the proposed 30-year charter amendment passes, starting in July, $23 million of the roughly $28 million in lease revenues would continue to go to the city’s general fund. The remaining revenue – an estimated $5 million to $12 million annually – would go toward completing bicycle and pedestrian trails, expanding wetlands, shoreline maintenance and other projects in the 4,235-acre park. An additional 25 percent of funds would go to Balboa and other regional parks, which could net $2 million to $4 million every year. After five years, the city’s cut of Mission Bay Park’s lease revenue would decrease from $23 million to $20 million. The reallocation of revenues is necessary to improve and maintain Mission Bay Park, Faulconer says. “The park has been neglected for too long. We must change that. It’s too important to citizens throughout San Diego.” Faulconer and Councilwoman Donna Frye were instrumental in getting Proposition C on the ballot. Mayor Jerry Sanders and the Sierra Club also support the measure. Frye has called the current fiscal arrangement between the city and the park “a broken promise.” San Diegans originally voted to allow commercial development in 25 percent of Mission Bay Park so that resulting revenues could pay for dredging and completing the manmade aquatic playground. A City Council action in 1968 redirected the monies into the general fund for emergency and basic services. City Council voted in 2004 to return a portion of revenue to the park. Under the Mission Bay Ordinance, both the Mission Bay Improvement Fund and the Regional Park Fund receive 25 percent of the park’s lease revenues exceeding $20 million, not to exceed $2.5 million in a fiscal year. City Council can and usually does, however, vote to waive the ordinance. “That’s like letting the fox guard the henhouse,” said Bob Ottilie, a former Mission Bay Park Committee (MBPC) member and one of Prop C’s architects. “In my view, we’re simply taking back revenue that was intended for Mission Bay Park in the first place,” said Judy Swink, a longtime member of the MBPC and park supporter. “To say we’re taking money from the city is a misstatement at minimum.” Swink also acts as chair of the parks and open space committee for Citizens Coordinate for Century 3 (C3), a nonpartisan, nonprofit local and regional planning organization that opposes Proposition C. Though Swink believes that Mission Bay Park needs a guaranteed revenue source, she does not believe Prop C is the answer. Mission Beach should not be included in the measure, she said, and the prioritization of projects could limit park development. Her concerns are shared by Council President Scott Peters and councilmen Ben Hueso and Jim Madaffer, who voted against putting Prop C on the ballot. Faulconer disagreed: “I think it’s important that we tell voters where their money will be spent.” Prop C identifies seven priorities: restoration of navigable waterways, wetland expansion and water quality improvements, shoreline treatments, expanding preserves for endangered and threatened species, completing trails and bridges for bicyclists and pedestrians, restoring the seawall bulkhead on Ocean Front Walk, and deferred maintenance and capital improvement projects. The projects are to be completed in a specific sequence determined by the MBPC and approved by City Council. Under the proposition, the council could move up or down to the next priority on the list if a grant or other funding became available. The provision would not provide enough flexibility, Swink sais. “I have no problem with any of the projects. My problem is with the prioritization of the projects.” Under the proposition, she says, if one priority needed more money, another could get put on hold and languish, pending the completion of other projects. The sequence could slow completion of Fiesta Island and South Shores, two areas the California Coastal Commission identified in 2002 as high priorities, Swink said. Other critics of the proposal have called it fiscally reckless, saying it siphons money from valuable city services and redirects it toward frivolous projects. Faulconer, chair of City Council’s audit committee and vice-chair of the budget committee, dismisses such claims. Citing Sanders’ support of Proposition C, he called the measure “an important fiscal reform.” “Mission Bay Park belongs to everyone,” Faulconer says. “It’s our crown aquatic jewel.” Swink says, “I’ve felt myself caught between two sides all along.”  Now it is up to voters to choose.