City Council Votes 7 to 1 for Continuance on Mission Bay ‘Surplus Land’ Issue

On Tuesday, July 29, the San Diego City Council voted overwhelmingly to continue the issue of Mission Bay “surplus land” into September. This was upon former councilmember Donna Frye’s request, as expressed both in her letter to the Council and in her statements in the OB Rag.

The issue was initially on the Consent Calendar of the council’s agenda for the day, which would have only called for a simple vote and no discussion of this important issue by councilmembers. Councilmember Marni von Wilpert pulled the item from the Consent Agenda and made the motion to deny the staff — the Mayor’s — recommendations.

After some discussion, the final vote was 7 for the continuance and one opposed. Councilmember Joe LaCava was the sole vote in opposition.

To their credit, councilmembers Jen Campbell, Stephen Whitburn, Henry Foster, von Wilpert, Kent Lee, Raul Campillo and Sean Elo-Rivera voted for the continuance. Councilmember Vivian Moreno was absent (again).

The reasoning of most of the Councilmembers and of the public speakers was that this was too important an issue for an immediate vote and that the public needed to be more informed and brought up to date on the matter; that a vote on it should be put off a couple of months.

LaCava’s argument for not supporting the continuance was a slap in the face to the public as he derided the idea that the city’s citizens needed to be more informed on the issue because, as he said, “You either hate the idea or love the idea,” and nothing would change that. It made no sense and his colleagues didn’t buy it either.

Many public speakers took the Council to task for allowing the issue to be on the Consent Agenda in the first place. It is our understanding that the current president of the Council, Joe LaCava, sets the agenda, which meant it was his idea to place it on the Consent Agenda.

Donna Frye was quoted by the U-T as saying converting what is now Marina Village into a hotel was a terrible idea.

“The city needs parkland, and places to take their kids and families. Mission Bay is one of the largest aquatic parks in the United States. We are not growing more parkland.”

In her letter and statements in the Rag, Frye wrote:

“There is no urgency to hear this matter on July 29 because the lease for Marina Village LLC does not expire until April 30, 2027. This is a matter of great public concern and interest because Mission Bay Park is one of our most beloved coastal areas.”

The U-T reported:

Frye said she would like the two smaller properties to remain in their current uses and the larger parcel to be broadly discussed in public before being declared surplus. She wrote to all nine members of the City Council last week, urging them to delay a vote and consider the plan more thoroughly.

The issue and Mayor Gloria’s recommendation did not even go to the Mission Bay Park Committee beforehand. The mayor’s recommendation asked council members to waive the requirement that surplus land first be circulated for review by all city departments to decide whether there is another municipal use for the property before seeking to offer it for commercial lease.

The chair of the Mission Bay Park Committee, Jeff Johnson, said the issue should have been evaluated by the group before going to the City Council because the group’s primary responsibility is protecting and enhancing Mission Bay Park as recreation and open space. Johnson stated:

“The committee takes seriously any situation that could undermine the park or its purpose. We will withhold judgment until the committee is fully briefed by city staff on the issue and can come to an informed, consensus position.”

Donna Frye had a lot of praise for Councilmember von Wilpert for taking the steps she took.

The Rag broke the story that the City and its mayor was considering turning these 3 properties into “surplus land” on July 9th. Donna Frye read the original Rag post and became incensed. She then wrote several articles published in the Rag and came up with the idea for a continuance of the issue. She wrote the Council on July 23 and even expressed a “Plan B” in case they didn’t go for the continuance.

In the meantime, the story failed to gain traction with San Diego’s mainstream press, despite the Rag’s efforts in finding a local mainstream reporter to take the issue on. “The issue was more important than the Rag and needed to get out there,” was my personal belief. Yet, nobody in the main media grabbed the issue until the day that the issue went before Council. And despite the vote to continue it, there was no follow-up by the U-T or any other media platform.