MAUREEN CAVANAUGH: Our top story on Midday Edition, a ruling by a state appeals court this summer put into limbo San Diego's plan to finance a convention center expansion. Today the city council holds a special meeting to discuss options moving forward. Todd Gloria is here to speak about that, along with the effort to place San Diego's minimum-wage hike on the ballot. Isn't the city up against a time limit to decide if it will appeal the ruling? TODD GLORIA: We are, that's why you see the council going back into session, although we are on legislative break, we have a deadline of December 10. We need to make a decision sooner rather than later, and so my hope is that we come to a decision to go forward or not today. MAUREEN CAVANAUGH: Do you support appealing the ruling to the state Supreme Court? TODD GLORIA: I'm undecided at the time. We have a meeting this afternoon where we will have an opportunity to be updated by but the city Attorney, outside counsel, and by the Mayor's office to make that decision. For me, it's very clear from the reading of the appeal decision that this is a strong opinion by the court, and we may have an uphill battle going forward. That being said, this is an important decision, and I think everybody knows this would generate thousands of jobs for our community, help us retain Comic-Con and other businesses in our city, and if we do not move forward that does not change the need for jobs, space, and to retain Comic-Con. I'm interested to hear how we might go forward if we choose not to appeal, we have tried to satisfy the remaining needs in the community. MAUREEN CAVANAUGH: The city attorney Jan Goldsmith said this plan to finance this expansion by allowing the hoteliers district to boost the room tax, he thought that was pushing the envelope. In light of that, does the city have a Plan B? TODD GLORIA: That is what I'm interested to know more about. The reason that we pursued this, it's the fact that other communities have used the same instrument and people are looking to the city council today because they're concerned about allowing this willing to stand and prohibit their ability to move forward as they have in the past. As I said a moment ago, in regards to Plan B, the need remains. The convention center is very popular, and we turn away a years worth of business, because we do not have the space to accommodate them. Other key clients, like Comic-Con and medical device conventions and others want to be here, but if we do not have the space, they have threatened to move away. With those concerns in mind, if the council chooses today not to move forward by majority vote and appeal this, that does not absolve the city of the need to address these concerns. That will involve conversations with the hotel industry, the primary financier of the expansion, and obviously there are some components of this that could include the Chargers and others. That could be a lengthy discussion and my concern is that those were not come to a conclusion in the future, that a lot of opportunity and jobs will be lost because we were not able to come to consensus sooner. MAUREEN CAVANAUGH: I want to come back to the idea of opening this plan up again and thinking of the different options that the city may have, but what do you see as the downside of moving forward with an appeal? TODD GLORIA: That's one of the questions I had today, I think from my perspective, reading the ruling, it is quite strong. We know that the Supreme Court takes a few cases, so what is the likelihood of that and what are the costs associated with continuing litigation? We are already in for a lot of money so far, is it in the councils wisdom to say we have gone this far, let's go see? I could see that being an outcome of today's discussion, it can also be, time is wasting and we need to move forward with a plan sooner rather than later. In terms of the relative downside, I don't necessarily know what that would be, other than the time lost if we are unsuccessful, and the strength of ruling and the few cases that the Supreme Court does take, we have a bit of an uphill battle. MAUREEN CAVANAUGH: What about putting this exact plan on the ballot, to get approved by voters? TODD GLORIA: That is an option that the council could consider doing, we're not able to do that for this November, this would be a 2016 question, and that goes back to the concern that I have, the best example is Comic-Con it's not the only example, but perhaps the best, they are committed to the battle until 2016, and that was our hope this year, to have the expansion completed to re-up the agreement with Comic-Con. Delaying the decision for two years may know that as well as other business opportunities. This is not esoteric or removed from the people. They may not appreciate the relevance to them, but the money generated by these events are the money that I used to pave roads, pay police officers, and keep the libraries open. That is why the council is intensely focused on this, and as you asked, if we don't pursue this, what do we do? It's so important to our cities overall economy. MAUREEN CAVANAUGH: As you mentioned, if the council does not move forward on his appeal, perhaps the whole issue will go open again, and the other thoughts and proposals that we heard about, perhaps melding a convention center expansion with multiuser Chargers Stadium's, all of the things people might have been talking about, but there's a reason this expansion plan was chosen over those plans, that was because the people closest to the convention center said the other plans would not work. In light of that, why do you think those other options could be reconsidered? TODD GLORIA: I'm not sure that they will, you're right, we have pursued a public process years ago that ended up with this proposal, this project, this footprint. This revolves around the business industry, and the customers in this case want to be under one roof. I don't think any of that has changed, I don't think that customer demands have changed, the realities may have changed and the court ruling may cause folks to say we may need to go a different way, but every conversation I've had seems to suggest that this continues to be important. If we move to another version, as we've seen in drawings in the newspaper and advocated by others elsewhere, you're right, those have been previously discarded, perhaps they are now relevant. One of the questions I have as someone with a fiduciary responsibility to the city, is that the hotel industry was willing to finance the expansion of the convention center because that space is contiguous and if that space is no longer continuous, and the half $1 billion contribution goes away, will pick up the tab. My presumption is that the expectation would be the taxpayer, at which point I become interested about whether or not that is the most important thing for our citizens. These are the points that will be relevant to our decision making process. I hope is between the mayor and his negotiations with stakeholders, he can help us understand our options. MAUREEN CAVANAUGH: Due to the complexity of this issue, do you expect a vote up or down on this today, whether or not the city will appeal? TODD GLORIA: I do, we have a deadline that you mentioned, we are currently in break, and this may be the only option get most of us together and make the decision to do our jobs, and I thank my colleagues for interrupting their vacations to come forward. They were not in exotic locales, they were within their districts, but nevertheless we were not anticipating to do this. This is a big deal and a big decision and we need to make that decision today. MAUREEN CAVANAUGH: Another issue, the San Diego Small Business Coalition is conducting a signature gathering campaign to get this minimum-wage hike before voters. One of their arguments is that you wanted the minimum wage hike to be a ballot measure before it was approved by a vote of the city council. Why do you now oppose the effort to put it on the ballot? TODD GLORIA: It's a wolf in sheep's clothing. Those who push the petition want to appeal the minimum wage increase. They claim it's about giving this to the people to vote on, but if they want to go back to my original statements, which are true, I personally would prefer that, but to compromise we came to where we ended up. Something tells me they would not be supportive of the $13.09 an hour I originally proposed as well. I think they also would not support the timeline I originally posted which was also proposed by business communities. For your listeners, we have dirty 8% of working San Diegans who do not take ends meet. They have difficulty keeping a roof over their heads or keeping food on the table. This is a modest measure that was born after eight months of dialogue and look discussion that is meant to address that. And to earn five sick days for people. This is what is at stake, and these folks claim to represent the public vote, the reality is it's about repeal. MAUREEN CAVANAUGH: You must have thought it had a good chance going before voters in the beginning of this, so when you see a problem bringing this before voters as a ballot measure? TODD GLORIA: Now, our research shows that roughly 62% of San Diegans support my measure, and understand the this is a modest compromise that would have a meaningful impact on the lives of the working poor. What I do have a concern about, much like with the convention center issue, that means delaying implementation for about two years. There are people today, right now, probably listening to this show, who do not understand how they will fill their tank of gas, they don't know how to put food on the table tonight, and they don't know how to make rent at the first of the month. They are the people who cannot wait. Under this artificial effort, which is really about getting it on the ballot so they can spend millions of dollars to repeal it, right now the city council did its job, it passed the ordinance and it is now law in San Diego and goes into effect on January 1, 2015. To sign those petitions will make it harder for people to put food on their tables and a roof over their head, and to make sure that they do not get a pay increase on January 1. I don't think that San Diegans want to lend their names to that effort. MAUREEN CAVANAUGH: Right, because if they get enough petitioners, that will be delayed, won't it? TODD GLORIA: That's right, it will put the ordinance into a freeze until voters take up that issue as soon as June 2016, so the five sick days, the forecasted increases, those things will not going to effect, and that would be tragic because we do have a problem right now, today. I think that is part of why the ordinance was adopted the way that it was, because we want to take swift action now and to serve the ability to amend it should something need to be changed. There are a lot of folks counting on this. There is no way that I go in the city that I'm not approached about this issue, and it's generally people saying thank you, someone is listening and they understand how hard we are working out here and not making it. They are grateful for the action, and again, it's a modest effort that is worthy of support. MAUREEN CAVANAUGH: A court recently found that signature gatherers for the Barrio Logan community plan said misleading and inaccurate things to get people to sign the petition. Do you expect the same tactic this time? TODD GLORIA: Not only do I expect it, I have experienced it. I went to the post office last week, the first day that they could collect signatures, a gentleman approached me as I was getting out of my car, straight to my days will be the state was trying to impose a higher minimum wage in San Diego, and asked me if I would sign a petition to prevent that from happening. Ironic, given that I authored the ordinance. These are not people from San Diego, they are not San Diegan, they are people who are taking in from outside of the city, and they are paid per signature, so they will do and say anything to get you to sign the petition, because that is how they make their money. We have seen that and have recommended proof of that. This is another reason people should not sign it. I think the reason they have to resort to those tactics is the fact that this is so popular, people understand this is a modest compromise worthy of support, and because they cannot win on actual facts, they scare people into signing it. If they are successful, and 34,000 signatures is a low barrier to get this on to the ballot, if they are successful in the effort it will not be because they used honorable tactics to do so. MAUREEN CAVANAUGH: Right now, this time around there is a rival group of supporters of the animal wage hike in San Diego who have gotten together in an organization called Raise Up San Diego, they intend to have booths and people at supermarkets, they said that they will give signers accurate information. How confident are you that people on the other side of this issue will be giving accurate information to people trying to make up their minds whether or not they want to sign that petition? TODD GLORIA: We want to have folks there to make sure that the picture is painted correctly. This is education, this is a not about anything other than that, and if it devolves into that, I certainly condemn any of those actions. Maureen, the people need to know when they are looking into that store, they need to know what they are signing. It's not because we pass a fifteen dollar minimum wage, which one of the signature gatherers said to me the other day. Some of the incredible things these folks have said, we want someone who says that is not accurate, and if you want to understand I am here to explain it to you. I think San Diegans are thoughtful people who would appreciate both point of view. This is exactly what the city council did over those eight months of public hearings where we took testimony and read the reports and came to this conclusion, the super majority saying this is the right thing to do. F people want to stop and have that conversation, and if it is balanced information, they can make the right decision for themselves. MAUREEN CAVANAUGH: What is the conversation that you have with small businesses who are concerned that they have just had to absorb an increase in state minimum wage, if there is no ballot measure, they will have to absorb another one, and the city minimum-wage hike starting in January this year, what do you say to them? TODD GLORIA: I heard them in this process, we initially opposed $13.09 an hour because this is what we believe it takes to live in the city without public subsidies. But they made it clear to me that they cannot afford it, so I heard them and we do state to $11.50, spread out over a longer period of time. I heard them, I understand them, change is frightening. But I would ask them to look at the other communities that have done this, like San Jose, where they sought a reduction of unemployment and an increase in of new business starts. The concerns that they have we have not seen in reality, and we have tried to incorporate their concerns into the ordinance to make sure that we did this in a way that was respectful to small businesses. I think that is why you see some small business owners supporting our efforts. MAUREEN CAVANAUGH: The next segment is about earthquake preparedness in San Diego. Since we had the big earthquake hit Napa Valley over the weekend, it makes us wonder if we are ready for the big one down here. What could the city of San Diego be doing better when it comes to earthquake preparedness? TODD GLORIA: I think you will hear a couple of the things that we are doing. I think we have to keep in mind, public safety is number one responsibility. You've seen that as we started to restore services, we ended fire engine brownouts, we're trying to recruit more police officers, things of that nature that I think add to the responsibilities we have to secure the area, in advance of help from the state and government. I think that is a long-term effort that we have to do. The city council has adopted blueprints from both the fire and fire rescue Department, and our lifeguards to about how we will get to where we want to be. This is nothing we can do overnight, resources are limited, but this is a blueprint we have adopted and we have been adhering to. It's an investment in both bodies and equipment, and if we can do that we can prevent it from happening, but we can mitigate and make sure that the loss of life and property is minimized as much as possible. MAUREEN CAVANAUGH: As always, thank you very much. TODD GLORIA: My pleasure, thank you.
The San Diego City Council voted unanimously Tuesday not to appeal a ruling by a state appeals court that rejected San Diego's plan to finance the project.
Now that means that the city would have to put the current expansion project before voters or find another way to fund it. A third option is to come up with an entirely different expansion plan.
Following the vote, Council President Todd Gloria said he remained "a stalwart supporter of the expansion of our Convention Center" but was done fighting this round.
"While I disagree with the ruling, pursuing further litigation is not likely to achieve results for San Diego," he said in a statement. "The City Council will be a full participant in revised financing plans to ensure a project is completed.”
San Diego Mayor Kevin Faulconer said his office has met with various parties, including the San Diego Chargers and members of the hotel industry, to discuss other plans but he emphasized the importance of public input.
"As I take a fresh look at expanding the convention center, I am open to all options," he said in a statement. "These include finding alternative financing for the current plan to expand directly next to the existing convention center as well as exploring a non-contiguous expansion at a different location that could include a new stadium for the Chargers. I continue to believe that any proposed Chargers stadium project should be brought before voters."
The City Council voted 7-0 to not appeal the ruling in a closed special session. Council members Ed Harris and Myrtle Cole were not in attendance. City Council is in recess until Sept. 8.
Earlier this month, a three-justice panel of the state 4th District Court of Appeal struck down a levy on area hotels, which was designed to pay the bulk of the project's $520 million cost. The justices sided with civic watchdog Melvin Shapiro, who called it a tax that should have been approved in a public vote.
The owners of the hotel properties had agreed to assess themselves to pay a share of the cost, because they'd be the ones to benefit from the projected increase in business.
City Attorney Jan Goldsmith had said that the city was venturing into an untested area of the law with the funding mechanism, which was previously upheld by San Diego Superior Court Judge Ronald Prager.
The City Council will deliberate in closed session and don't necessarily have to make a decision Tuesday. An open session will be held first so the public can weigh in.
Tourism officials are eager to expand the center out of concerns that the largest of the trade shows are bypassing San Diego for larger facilities. Comic-Con International, the pop culture confab that draws 130,000 attendees to San Diego each year, has been courted by other cities for years.
The current design, if actually built, would give San Diego the largest amount of contiguous floor space on the West Coast — something tourism officials say is essential to attracting the biggest conventions. If those plans fall by the wayside, however, some of the alternatives being floated include the construction of nearby annexes, and possible joint use of a future football stadium for the Chargers.
