By Lori Weisberg / The San Diego Union-Tribune / January 27, 2025
Animal rights activists showed up at City Hall on Monday, Jan. 27, to protest a proposed settlement with SeaWorld that would require the theme park to pay the city $8.5 million in back rent that went unpaid during the pandemic.
PETA, which has long been critical of SeaWorld for its treatment of killer whales and dolphins, has filed a formal objection in federal court to the settlement, which it calls a “sellout.” The group says the payout falls short of the more than $12 million in back rent, late fees and interest the city had originally sought.
Former San Diego City Attorney Mara Elliott announced last month that San Diego and SeaWorld, following a nearly three-year-long rent dispute, had finally reached a settlement. The agreement, if approved by the federal court, would end dueling lawsuits alleging violation of the lease between San Diego and the theme park governing its Mission Bay site.
While the court-mediated settlement does not give the city everything it had demanded, it does call for lease “sweeteners” — beyond the $8.5 million — that would require SeaWorld to provide complimentary admission to teachers, active-duty military, veterans and school districts over a specified period of time.
Before the settlement can be finalized, a “settlement disposition conference” will be held Friday. Elliott said last month that the $8.5 million would then be paid by SeaWorld within 30 days of the formal execution of the agreement. It’s unclear if PETA’s motion will change the timeline. No ruling has been issued yet on its request to intervene.
Close to a dozen PETA members arrived at City Hall on Monday morning before the start of the council meeting, bearing signs that read, “SeaWorld profits from dolphin and whale abuse” and “City Council, stop enabling SeaWorld’s animal abuse.”
“At a minimum,” said PETA campaigner Mason Melito, “the city should release the full terms of the settlement and allow input from the public before finalizing the settlement by putting it on the agenda so citizens can actually have a say.”
Hours later, Melito and two other PETA members addressed the council, urging it to reject the mediated settlement. Because there was no item on the agenda related to the agreement, the activists chose to make their pleas during the non-agenda public comment period of the meeting.
“SeaWorld is a billion-dollar company that owes more than $12 million to the city in rent, late fees and more,” Melito told council members. “And rather than hold it accountable, the city is proposing that it let the abusive park off the hook for more than $3 million and actually go so far as to help prop up the company by handing it free advertising and an influx of visitors with SeaWorld admission coupons.”
PETA member Regina de la Peña, citing the city’s need to make painful cuts in the face of a large budget deficit, said that as a San Diego resident, “I hope you will not choose to forfeit the millions of dollars owed to the city in exchange for SeaWorld’s admission coupons.”
In its court filing, PETA argued that it has the right to weigh in on the proposed settlement under the federal Rules of Civil Procedure that it says allow a non-party to intervene in ongoing litigation.
By agreeing to settle for less than the full back rent and fees owed, San Diego is effectively allowing SeaWorld to “funnel” millions of dollars to “a private entertainment company in exchange for admission coupons which will invariably cost their unfortunate recipients far more than the price of admission to SeaWorld to redeem,” PETA’s attorney states in the court motion.
When the terms of the settlement were disclosed last month, Elliott said it represented a “good result for San Diego taxpayers” that would allow the city to “recover overdue tax and provide benefits to service members and local schools.”
SeaWorld at the time did not comment on the substance of the agreement, saying only that it was “grateful to have reached a resolution of this matter and look forward to continuing our strong partnership with the city of San Diego for years to come.”
The rent dispute with the marine park dates back to March 2022, when SeaWorld was first informed by the city that it was in default of the conditions of its lease related to the payment of rent, even though theme parks had to be closed for a time due to the pandemic.
At the time, the park was told that if it agreed to a 24-month repayment plan that was made available to all city tenants facing financial hardships because of the pandemic, San Diego would waive any added fees and penalty charges, leaving a balance of more than $8.8 million.
SeaWorld later filed a countersuit contending that the city’s forced closure during the pandemic was a violation of its lease and it, therefore, owed nothing to the city.
