San Diego Magazine / October 2004 / Business Propositions

 Email  Print  Feed

Business Propositions

BUSINESS INTERESTS are lining up behind what are likely to be two of the more hotly contested local initiatives on the November ballot —the strong-mayor amendment to the San Diego city charter and the reinstatement of the TransNet half-cent sales tax. Organized labor is opposed to Proposition F, the strong-mayor proposal, while a “strange bedfellows” alliance of environmentalists and pro-freeway advocates is trying to defeat Proposition A, the TransNet initiative.

Both measures are the flawed products of back-room deal-making, opponents say.

Arguing that the transformation of city government is long overdue, strong-mayor proponents say it’s time for San Diego to grow up and adopt a form of government that dilutes the power of the entrenched bureaucracy and makes elected officials fully accountable for what goes on at city hall. But if growing up means playing the hardball politics of Chicago, Boston, New York or San Francisco, opponents of the initiative are saying, “No, thank you.” They also argue that while the concept might have some merit, this particular ballot measure did not get a thorough public review and should be rewritten before such a dramatic change is instituted.

Among those squaring off on the issue are the San Diego Regional Chamber of Commerce and its traditional adversary, the San Diego–Imperial Counties Labor Council. Both agree the fundamental issue is accountability; they disagree on where that accountability should lie.

The Chamber argues the city is currently under the control of the city manager, who is not elected and therefore not directly accountable to the voters. But under the strong-mayor system, the mayor—elected citywide and directly accountable to the voters—would be in charge as the city’s CEO. The Downtown Partnership and the San Diego Taxpayers’ Association also support the measure.

“Big cities need strong leaders,” says Mitch Mitchell, vice president of public policy and communications for the Chamber. “It’s nearly impossible for a mayor of San Diego to design and advocate significant public policies in the current governmental structure.” He and others point to the San Diego Chargers ticket guarantee, the city pension fund crisis, errors in the city’s financial statements and the city’s falling bond rating as problems symbolic of the current city-manager structure.

Beyond that public good, Mitchell acknowledges that business could benefit from decisions regarding the city budget, land use and fees. “Having one person to whom you can assess blame for either improving the business climate or hindering the business climate isn’t necessarily a bad thing,” he says.

INFLUENCE PEDDLING is more like it, claims organized labor, which sees the strong-mayor bandwagon as a backroom power grab by the business community.

“Downtown big business is trying to jam this down the people’s throats, but that’s not the way you change the government of our city—a few rich white guys sitting in a room telling the people what’s good for them,” says Jerry Butkiewicz, secretary- treasurer of the Labor Council.

“There’s a process in place to change the charter—they circumvented it.” He and others argue that accountability lies within the council districts —the neighborhoods—and with open government. A strong-mayor system, they say, will only create divisive politics, pitting the mayor against the city council. The citizens will be the losers, they contend, when a ham-fisted mayor in control of the city budget gives short shrift to districts whose council representatives don’t fall in line.

“There will be no accountability to the neighborhood, if this passes,” Butkiewicz predicts. “You won’t be able to get a pothole fixed because of the hardball politics.”

He denies that traditionally Democratic organized labor is opposing the amendment simply because both candidates for the nonpartisan mayor’s office are Republicans. The proponents are unconvinced. Introduced by Mayor Dick Murphy, the strong-mayor proposal is a version of an earlier draft championed by the San Diego Good Government Association, cochaired by City Club president George Mitrovich and business stalwart Malin Burnham. Mitrovich, a self-described “Kennedy liberal,” laughs when he The environmental group’s opposition stems, in large part, from what it calls a “back-room deal” between the building industry and the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG).

A provision in the plan would exempt developers of commercial and industrial buildings from paying additional development impact fees, although there would be a $2,000-per-unit assessment on new housing units countywide, with some exceptions. But the housing fee is merely a “carrot” to get voters to go along with the proposal, argues club spokesperson Carolyn Chase.

Paul Tryon, chief executive officer of the Building Industry Association of San Diego, denies there was any such deal and insists the building industry has always paid its “fair share” toward infrastructure improvements.

He says the Building Industry Association challenged SANDAG to demonstrate that the new fee, which will ultimately be passed on to the buyer, is “fair and reasonable” and “does not exceed our impact.”

“This was a bitter pill to swallow, but the reason we’re willing to get on board with this measure is because we realize San Diego must have the extension of the TransNet tax so it has that reliable source of money to make our transportation improvements,” Tryon says.

However, for the measure to pass, it needs a two-thirds majority, and the Sierra Club has found an unlikely ally in three county supervisors, although they oppose TransNet for a very different reason. Supervisors Bill Horn, Pam Slater-Price and Dianne Jacob say too much money will be devoted to public transit and not enough money is slated for freeway construction.

Environmentalists take the opposite view. Where they do agree is that the measure ought to be defeated so a better proposal can be drafted and put before the voters in 2006.

Business interests claim both of these initiatives are critical to San Diego’s future. The opposition says, “Do it right or not at all.” Ultimately, the voters will decide who is the most persuasive.