By Geoff Page
After listening to the city’s presentation and unanimous, one-sided public comment, the Mission Bay Park Committee voted a resounding no on the city’s surplus lands proposal. The city’s plan, as detailed here in The Rag, involves declaring three land parcels in Mission Bay as surplus lands. Like the city did with 46 acres in the Midway area.
From the city’s website:
The Mission Bay Park Committee advises the Park and Recreation Board on the development, utilization, and policies regarding Mission Bay Park.
The committee meeting was held at the Paradise Point Resort on Ingraham Street in Mission Bay, August 5, starting at 6:00 p.m.
The Surplus Lands agenda item:
202. Recommendation to City Council to Declare City-Owned Real Property within Mission Bay Park as Surplus Land
The objective of the city’s presentation was to obtain the parks committee support for two things. The city first wanted the committee’s support for the surplus lands proposal.
The second item was something The Rag has covered. The State Surplus Lands Act requires the city to circulate the availability of the land to all city departments – before declaring it surplus land – to see if there is any municipal use for the land.
The second item the city wanted the committee to support was a proposal to by-pass the circulation requirement in the state law. In other words, they wanted the committee to agree to break the law.
The city’s proposal was presented by Andy Field, Director of the Parks and Recreation Department. This was followed by public comment that was unanimously against declaring the park land as surplus land.
While none of the public comment was in favor of the city’s proposal, it appeared that two people on the committee may be in alignment with the mayor’s plan. The vote on the committee’s motion, not to support the city’s proposal, received two no votes.
The first public commenter read a long letter from Donna Frye into the record. As seen here in The Rag, Donna Frye wrote a letter urging the city council to table discussion of the matter in July and the council did just that. It might be heard in September. The lone vote against the postponement was City Council President, Joe LaCava.
LaCava attended the meeting and faced a hostile audience. The crowd was controlled but the undercurrent of anger was obvious by a few comments that were hurled out. LaCava was given credit by the committee for attending and facing the criticism.
A number of references were made by both sides to city charter sections, council policies, state laws, and the Mission Bay Park Master Plan. These will each be checked and will be detailed in a follow up piece. The positions of each side will be clearer as those references are used.
For now, it is victory for parks.
Mission Bay Committee did their homework, were refreshingly attentive, listening to every speaker, and thoughtfully engaging with everyone in the meeting. A refreshing reminder of how democracy is supposed to work. A complete contrast to our smartphone addled, arrogant, dismissive, disinterested, derisive and self serving profiteering San Diego City council as well as the Mayor.
Seems San Diego taxpayers are paying the wrong folks $200K in yearly salaries.
How stomach churningly embarrassing and pitiful is it that San Diegans have been relegated to giving out a “participation trophy” for our City Councilmember simply actually showing up to a critical City Committee hearing in his own district?
Especially given that Council President, Joe LaCava prioritized this “surprise” as an agenda item, and then tellingly cast the lone vote against postponement in the City Council meeting in an effort to slip this one past the public.
So, I put Mr. LaCava on the spot shortly after 2 very brief comments. I deliberately conceding the full remainder of my comment time to him in an effort to force him to publicly answer on the record, for his derisive actions and unwanted actions.
Mr. La Cava intimated that he was simply powerless. Powerless against the State, that the Newsom Hyper-Gentrification Cartel in California State government is going to do whatever they want to do to us. So it’s best to acquiesce, public be damned, sucks to be you man.
To review: Joe LaCava is the Council President of the San Diego City Council, the second largest city in the most populated state in the Union. If he feels he is powerless in this unbelievably influential position of power, then the residents of District 1 I motion to request he resign from office as he has proven incapable of reasonable representation.
By the way, Attorney Cory Briggs is my hero! Corey absolutely DESTROYED the Mayors profiteering proposal for the ball of shit illegality that it represents. 1.4 MILLION MAHALOS FOR CORY BRIGGS FOR TIRELESSLY DEFENDING SAN DIEGANS FOR DECADES NOW!
Especially given that Council President Joe LaCava prioritized this “surprise” as an agenda item, and then tellingly cast the lone vote against postponment in the City Council meeting in an effort to slip this one past the public.
So, I put Mr. LaCava on the spot shortly after 2 very brief comments by deliberately conceding my time to him in an effort to force him to publicly answer on the record, for his derisive actions and unwanted actions. Mr. La Cava intimated that he was powerless against the State, and they were going to do what their going to do.
To review: Joe LaCava is the Council President of the San Diego City Council, the second largest city in the most populated state in the Union. If he feels he is powerless in this unbelievably influential position of power, then the residents of District 1 should request he resign from office as he has proven incapable of reasonable represntation.
By the way Attorney Cory Briggs is my hero! Corey absolutely DESTROYED the Mayors profiteering proposal for the ball of shit illegality that it represents. THANK YOU CORY BRIGGS FOR YEARS OF TIRELESSLY DEFENDING SAN DIEGANS FOR DECADES!
My apologies for mistakenly twice pasting comments in this feed. I failed to scroll all the way down when I posted. My Bad…
Thank you. Well said and well played.
LaCava had to admit that this item – Gloria’s request for portions of MB Park Land be Declared ‘Surplus Land,’ should have gone before the Mission Beach Park Committee for a vote before going to the Land Use and Housing Committee on July 2nd (where it was quietly rubber stamped through). Reason 9,989 we have zero trust with any of the current City Council members, their City Hall staff, and of course the worst Mayor ever – Fraud Gloria.
Attorney Bob Ottilie, once a member and chair of MBPC almost two decades ago, also spoke passionately against recommending to Council declaring the Mission Bay Park parcels as Surplus Lands. He strongly suggested possible future litigation if Council doe so.
BTW, it was Ottilie and Kevin Faulconer (who also once served on MBPC and as chair) who put together the 2008 Proposition C which finally captured some of the revenue from lessees for the benefit of Mission Bay Park.
Previously, 100% went into the General Fund and City Council decided how much of that to budget back to Mission Bay (never enough). Now, the first $20 million goes to the General Fund and anything above that is divided between the Mission Bay Park Improvement Fund (65% to Mission Bay; 35% to the Regional Parks Improvement Fund). Many then languishing improvement projects have since been funded.
Thx much, Geoff Page for your work on this issue and for sharing your reporting with us. And thx Mateo for your excellent comments and actions at this meeting. We should all spread the work on this important subject and post and repost this story on our social media.
powerless against the State, and they were going to do what their going to do.
Very telling that the Dem power grab exists nonetheless. Not a surprise. You’d think groups here would want to coalesce outside of a only progressive stance and incorporate more moderates to circumvent the garbage being sold as commonplace Dem positions. Funny ass dysfunctional key rap.
Did you not see my personal email to you asking that we mutually tone it down?
Chris, I believe that most of the Ragsters and myself are ideologically Progressives. Above all though, I am an American, I believe in civil discourse and as such I want to listen to what you have to say because as my fellow American and I earnestly believe your opinion matters. If you insist on labeling those you disagree with then please get it right to better articulate your positions. I respect you.
CURRENT US POLITICAL SPECTRUM
Socialism Center Fascism
|———–|—————–|————————|-|———-|——————–|—————|—-|
Liberals Progressives Corporatist Moderate Conservatives MAGA
Democrats Conservatives
What can I say, I knew I was taking a risk and sure enough the Political spectrum diagram I keyboarded into the comment window didn’t translate the way I had created it, sorry Chris. I tried to save you the trouble of looking it up.
Does’t really matter though, the whole Left v. Right ideological differences are actually moot on our Average Joe level here, bud. But we still have some constitutionally guaranteed rights in California; in addition to the ones we’re not so sure how long we’re going to continue to have in this country, but gratefully still do.
Chris, It’s all about the Good People vs the corrupted. We’re going to need all of us Good People, including you.
The City was planning to declare the land “surplus,” even though it could have first designated it as “exempt surplus” based on its dedicated park status and legal restrictions that prevent housing. They could pass a resolution at Council saying it’s “exempt surplus.” That would have triggered a 30-day review by the state (HCD), which could object if they disagreed. Also, HCD doesn’t even grant waivers up front — it’s the City’s responsibility to make the initial call and justify it. Instead, the City skipped that step and treated the land as fully subject to the Surplus Land Act — essentially giving up its own discretion. Thankfully, public opposition caused them to delay the vote. They really switch to declaring it “exempt surplus” or we’ll just be back at Council with the same issue in September.
The City’s process stinks, as usual, but the objective to do something useful with the land, at least near the Quivera landing has value that should be considered. Right now and for decades, the land has been grossly under utilized. If it not too late, the City should try again.
The distrust of Sacramento and SD City Hall has never been greater. While Gloria is mayor and now that La Cava has been exposed on multiple fronts that is not likely to change.
Yesterday the mayor’s czar on this issue called me and tried to persuade me that both of them really want a hotel on the site but just can’t seem to figure out how to get around the Surplus Lands Act. This is gonna be their public-relations mantra — “we don’t want to build housing in Mission Bay Park but the law forces us to give housing developers first dibs” — even though the mayor and city council are not following the SLA process for other city-owned property outside MBP. So it’s even more clear to me than it was before the call that the mayor is pushing to build high-end housing on the site. Yes, a minority fraction of it will have to be “affordable” under the SLA, but the overwhelming majority will be high-end housing if the city goes down the SLA road.
At the meeting, Joe La Cava tried to make it sound like the city could start down the SLA path but then take the city off the path after a 90-day period of trying to negotiate with a developer in good faith. He surely knew that was a lie when he said it because he has dealt with the SLA plenty during his pre-politician career. If the city can back out of the process mid-stream and could be counted on to do so in order to prevent housing in MBP, then why start the process in the first place? If the city starts the process knowing that it’s gonna pull out before finishing it, then by definition the city would not be engaging in good-faith negotiations with the developer. And if the city is negotiating in good faith, the public has every reason to expect that build-baby-build politicians like Todd Gloria, Joe La Cava, and their ilk on the city council will transfer the property to a developer, blame Sacramento for it, and tell the public that their hands were tied (all while collecting developer donations for their next campaign).
People should not feel comfortable about the outcome of the MBP Committee’s vote. Note that there were two votes in favor of giving Todd and Joe what they want. If the mayor can persuade two people on a non-binding vote to side with him, what do you think he’ll do to a majority of politicians on the city council? He’s already got the council president in his corner. The mayor and the council president can cause a lot of headaches for the seven other politicians whose districts do not contain MBP. How confident do you feel that politicians whose districts don’t include MBP are gonna vote to maintain MBP for recreation rather than turning it into the next available land for housing?
The city’s politicians are never afraid to do X or Y — things that break the law — when the politicians want X or Y, no matter how much public resistance there is. That Todd and Joe are suddenly afraid of the city might get sued tells us all we need to know about their true intentions.