2016 NOVEMBER GENERAL ELECTION IVN SAN DIEGO VOTER GUIDE

When San Diego voters head to the polls for the November General Election, they will find 35 ballot measures to vote on. For purposes of efficiency, IVN San Diego will break down the 14 city and countywide measures that could have the most significant impacts on our region's future.

Related Articles:

Voice of San Diego

San Diego Free Press Voter Guide

Measure A. SAN DIEGO COUNTY INFRASTRUCTURE MEASURE. ROAD REPAIR, TRANSIT, TRAFFIC RELIEF, SAFETY AND WATER QUALITY MEASURE.

Proposition A would enact a 40-year half-cent local sales tax that supporters say would raise $308 million annually for road repairs, transit expansion, preserve open space, and protect water quality.

A "yes" vote on Proposition A, which would take effect next summer, would place three revenue streams into San Diego’s Infrastructure Fund: pension savings for 25 years, sales tax growth above inflation for 25 years, and half of property and hotel tax growth for five years.

Voting "no" will keep the status quo.

Councilman Mark Kersey, who authored the measure, “Rebuild San Diego,” said it would prioritize infrastructure investment as “a core function” of local government.

Councilman David Alvarez said: “The Rebuild San Diego measure will NOT rebuild San Diego. It produces just 11 percent of the $1.7 billion we need to fix our streets, sidewalks and buildings in just the next five years.” Other opponents have called the measure a shell game, not a real infrastructure solution.

Supporters include Councilmen Todd Gloria and David Alvarez, the San Diego Labor Coalition, Taxpayers Advocate Scott Barnett.

Opponents include the San Diego County Taxpayers Association, Mayor Kevin Faulconer, the San Diego Chamber of Commerce, Lori Zapf, and Scott Sherman.

Related Articles:

Voice of San Diego

San Diego Union-Tribune

Measure B. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE COUNTY GENERAL PLAN, COUNTY ZONING MAP AND COUNTY CODE, AND ADOPTING THE LILAC HILLS RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN.

Measure B would amend the county general plan and allow for the residential housing development, Lilac Hills Ranch, in northern San Diego county.

California is experiencing a historic housing crisis due to a lack of new housing construction and development. The Golden State currently ranks 49th out of 50 states for providing housing for its population; only Alaska is worse. Just like San Francisco, San Diego is caught in the crisis that’s only getting worse. Families are forced to relocate and employers can’t pay employees enough to afford a home. Consequently, the job market also suffers. Lilac Hills Ranch would provide housing starting in the $300,000 range for single-family homes in the north county.

A "yes" vote on Measure B would allow for the construction of the planned community of Lilac Hills Ranch. The development has been approved by the Planning Commission and county staff. It’s located less than a mile east of the I-15 in the Bonsall/Valley Center communities.

A “no” vote would not allow the community development to proceed.

Supporters argue that the development is badly needed and is the next generation of the village-style community San Diego County desperately needs. It will provide attainable family housing starting at $300,000. It will create 600 temporary jobs and 1,800 permanent jobs. It will also use less water than is currently used on site for agricultural purposes. Because of the “village” style of the community, SANDAG has stated it will likely cut down on traffic in the region because community members will have their needs centralized within the community. The Deer Springs Fire Department has also signed off on the development as has the Bonsall Unified School District.

Opponents argue that the development will cause traffic congestion, fire issues, and “make a mockery” of the county general plan. They argue that the developer has tried to bypass environmental laws by taking this measure to the voters.

Supporters include the San Diego Chamber of Commerce and its CEO, Jerry Sanders, Chula Vista Mayor Mary Salas, Scott Barnett, Taxpayer Advocate Network, Gordon Carrier, Howard Windsor, and Former chief of San Diego CAL FIRE.

Opponents include San Diegans Against Lilac Hills Ranch.

Related Articles:

IVN San Diego

Measure C. DOWNTOWN STADIUM INITIATIVE.

*Editors Note: A previous version in the ballot guide mistakenly listed the Lincoln Club as an opponent of Measure C. The Lincoln Club has taken no position on Measure C.

Measure C would increase the City of San Diego’s Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) to 16.5%. It would use the additional revenues to build a downtown football stadium and non-contiguous expansion of the San Diego Convention Center.

The San Diego Chargers have played at Qualcomm stadium in Mission Valley since 1967. By all accounts, the stadium is outdated and costly for the City of San Diego to maintain. Measure C asks San Diegans to raise the “TOT” tax 6 percent to help pay for a new stadium and convention center expansion facility downtown. It would also clear the path for additional city revenues in the vacated Qualcomm site in Mission Valley.

Measure C would create a new visitor’s tax of four cents on the dollar per hotel stay to pay for the new combined convention center and stadium, and two more cents to fund Tourism and Marketing District regional promotions.

The Chargers and the NFL will contribute $650 million in private investment to complete this new facility. $350 million of hotel room tax will be included for integrating the convention center into the stadium.

The second feature of the measure would create a Joint Powers Authority to oversee the design, construction, operation, and maintenance of the facility, along with the creation of a dedicated funding mechanism to collect taxes from visitors to pay the bonds and other project costs.

A “yes” vote would allow the San Diego Chargers and city to build a new downtown stadium and convention center expansion out of the increased TOT revenues.

Those who support measure C say it will not cost taxpayers a dime. The revenues will come from tourists who stay in area hotels. This is similar to what the NFL Saints, Colts, Seahawks and Cardinals have done in their respective markets. This measure will not only keep the Chargers in San Diego, but also, supporters say, keep Comic-Con in San Diego by providing much needed convention center expansion space and opportunities for growth. If successful, the initiative could relieve existing obligations at Qualcomm Stadium and relieve the city of its current general fund subsidy of the existing convention center: together totaling at least $18 million per year.

Supporters include the SD Chamber of Commerce, San Diego Chargers, San Diego Stadium Coalition, SD County Building & Construction Trades Council, and U.S. Reps Scott Peters and Juan Vargas.

A “no” vote would defeat the measure and keep the Transient Occupancy Tax at 10.5%. It would also raise the question of what is the game plan for the Chargers and a possible move to Inglewood.

Opponents argue that supporting measure C would do irreparable harm to Comic-Con. That it would harm the tourism industry in San Diego by raising the tourism tax 6 cents on the dollar. And in doing so, cause many in the San Diego tourism industry to lose their jobs. They also claim a very real threat of an immediate hit to the city’s general fund if voters approve the stadium tax because the initiative does not include covering the loss of more than 1,000 parking spaces at Tailgate Park that Padres fans utilize. The city’s lease with the Padres says the city would have one baseball season to replace the parking spaces if Tailgate Park is developed. This would likely require the building of a new parking structure near Petco Park, costing taxpayers tens of millions of dollars that is not in the budget.

Opponents include Council members Scott Sherman and Chris Cate, and SD County Taxpayers Association.

Related Articles:

IVN San DiegoSan Diego Union-Tribune

Measure D. FACILITIES AND TOURISM TAX REFORM INITIATIVE.

Measure D is also known as the Citizens’ Plan for San Diego for the responsible management of major tourism and entertainment resources. The measure would increase the Transient Occupancy Tax from 10.5% to 15.5%. The revenues would be sent directly to the General Fund to be used for city services. Measure D prohibits the use of public money to be spent for a downtown Chargers stadium without a separate vote.

The amount of the revenues collected would be between $18-$90 million annually. The disparity is due to whether the hoteliers opt-in to measure D’s convention center expansion program or not. If they do, and expand the convention center non-contiguously, the city will see a general fund revenue increase closer to the $18 million figure. The Citizens’ Plan also provides that the Qualcomm stadium site in Mission Valley, should the Chargers relocate, be used for parkland expansion and higher education purposes.

The public will get to vote on a vision for our city’s future that provides a public benefit for all San Diegans. In the last decade, politicians have authorized over $2 billion for special hotel-industry projects while denying the public its right to vote and falling behind on long-overdue infrastructure upgrades. In 2007, the Tourism Marketing District enacted a 2% tax on hotel guests without a vote of the public. It’s been the subject of ongoing litigation that was recently settled. If the Citizens’ Plan passes in November, the TMD will be dissolved and the process by which San Diego is promoted to visitors will likely change.

A “yes” vote would raise the Transient Occupancy Tax to 15.5%. It would give limited financial incentives to hoteliers, the primary beneficiaries of convention facilities, to spend their own money expanding the convention center. It would create an entertainment zone overlay for downtown, and provide that Mission Valley be used for parks and educational purposes.

Supporters argue that the Yes on D measure puts taxpayers first. That for far too long San Diego has been controlled by a small group of hoteliers. Measure D changes that and puts San Diego taxpayers first with a comprehensive plan to ensure the general fund, expansion of the convention center, parkland use and higher education opportunities are done with putting the public first. The measure has widespread and diverse support from environmental groups, taxpayer organizations, voting rights organizations, and political leaders.

A “no” vote would keep the Transient Occupancy Tax at 10.5% and allow the Tourism Marketing District to continue.

Opponents argue that the passage of Measure D will force Comic-Con to leave San Diego. They base their argument on the fact that Measure D opposes a contiguous expansion of the convention center, something Comic-Con has stated they prefer over a campus-style expansion. City Attorney Jan Goldsmith has also opined that Measure D is legally precarious and tries to do too much in one measure.

UPDATE:

A judge ordered based on the parties' stipulation that the argument against Measure D be changed. The change removes the false statement that Measure D “could force Comic-Con to leave.” Comic-Con previously issued a press release stating that Measure D “will have no effect on the organization’s decision to remain in San Diego.”

Supporters include League of Women Voters San Diego, League of Conservation Voters San Diego, Democratic Party of San Diego, Councilman David Alvarez, San Diego Stadium Coalition, California Taxpayers Action Network, and Joe LaCava, San Diego Community Partners Committee.

There is NO organized opposition to Measure D.

Related Articles:

IVN San Diego

San Diego Union Tribune

Measure E. CHARTER AMENDMENT REGARDING QUALIFICATIONS, VACANCY, AND REMOVAL FOR MAYOR, CITY ATTORNEY, AND COUNCIL.

Measure E would amend the charter to include a new article adding: incapacity, felony conviction, and removal as grounds for vacancies in office.

Called the Bob Filner measure, the City of San Diego would create a procedure calling for a special election to remove an officer for cause. Measure E would make it easier and more legally transparent for the City to remove an elected official.

A “yes” vote would enact Measure E and amend the City Charter.

Support for Measure E is widespread and unchallenged. The removal of sitting mayor Bob Filner was a stain on the city’s history. Measure E would provide legal protections for the city and a more structured path when the removal of an elected official is warranted.

A “no” vote would keep the City Charter unchanged. It would keep the status quo, which requires death, resignation, loss of voter eligibility or a recall to force an official out before the end of his or her term.

Related Articles:

San Diego Union-Tribune

IVN San Diego

Measure F. CHARTER AMENDMENT REGARDING TERMINATIONS OR SUSPENSIONS OF DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEYS.

Measure F would shrink the probationary period for deputy city attorneys from two years to one. Currently the city's nearly 150 deputy city attorneys can be fired during their first two years on the job without cause.

Supporters include the City Attorney Jan Goldsmith and the Deputy Attorneys Association. They say it protects new deputy city attorneys from being fired for political reasons. There is no filed opposition to Measure F.

A “yes” vote would amend the City Charter requiring that the city attorney be a lawyer in good standing with the California State Bar and have a minimum of 10 years experience practicing law in the state and extend job protections to deputy city attorneys after their first year on the job.

Supporters argue that the city attorney should be an attorney in good standing with the California State Bar. And the 10-year minimum is the amount of experience an attorney should have to adequately run the office.

A “no” vote would keep the City Charter as is and allow any person, regardless of employment history, to run for the city attorney post. It would also continue to give deputy city attorneys job protections only after two years on the job.

 

Related Articles:

Voice of San Diego

IVN San Diego

Measure G. CHARTER AMENDMENTS REGARDING THE CITIZENS’ REVIEW BOARD ON POLICE PRACTICES.

The City Charter would be amended to rename the Citizens’ Review Board on Police Practices as the Community Review Board on Police Practices. Would also replace references to “City Manager” with “Mayor and City Council.” The Measure would also require the board to review all deaths occurring while someone is in the custody of the San Diego Police Department and all police officer-related shootings.

In 1988, San Diego voters said yes to create the current police review panel. Law enforcement lobbied hard against giving the current group investigative and subpoena powers. Mayor Maureen O’Connor and a number of minority leaders and community activists wanted the oversight but it was defeated. Two years later, San Diego County voters granted subpoena and investigative powers to their new Citizens' Law Enforcement Review Board. Ever since, there’s been pressure on the city to follow suit. Critics say the current system is tied too closely to the police department, as investigations are conducted by the department’s internal affairs division, not the board itself. Supporters of the status quo maintain the panel operates independently and multiple investigations may be a waste of money.

A “yes” vote would amend the City Charter and give the Community Review Board greater power in investigating officer-related shootings. The current board includes 23 members with four blacks and one Asian. The panel’s executive director is working to increase minority representation.

Supporters argue it’s time for greater transparency and better community representation to oversee and investigate officer-related shootings.

A “no” vote would keep the status quo and the Police Department would continue its own investigations into police shootings.

Opponents argue the current panel operates independently and multiple investigations may be a waste of money.

Related Articles:

San Diego Union-Tribune

Voice of San Diego

Measure H. CHARTER AMENDMENTS REGARDING PURCHASING AND CONTRACTING PROCESSES FOR THE CITY OF SAN DIEGO.

Amend the City Charter to require contracts for public works, goods, services, and consultants to be awarded through a competitive process in accordance with rules adopted by ordinance, remove the position of Purchasing Agent, eliminate the requirement to publish certain notices in printed newspapers, and update other provisions consistent with state law.

Measure H is very straightforward and it resolves city staff concerns over the City Charter.

It also removes a requirement that the city advertise certain contracts in a local newspaper 10 days before the deadline for bids. The change would allow the city to simply follow public disclosure rules that already exist.

Supporters: City staff requested the change. Measure H was put on the ballot by the Charter Review Committee and City Council.

Opponents: Nobody is on record opposing it.

A YES vote would: approve the change.

A NO vote would: reject it.

Measure I. CHARTER AMENDMENT REGARDING BALBOA PARK AND SAN DIEGO HIGH SCHOOL.

Measure I would amend City Charter section 55 to authorize the city of San Diego to lease the dedicated park property in Balboa Park currently occupied by San Diego High School.

If passed, Measure I would allow San Diego High School to stay in Balboa Park beyond 2024. The San Diego City Council voted in June to put the measure before voters in the general election. It’s an effort to legalize school use for the 34 acres of Balboa Park that San Diego High has occupied for 134 years. The term was negotiated in 1974. The current lease expires in 8 years. The current City Charter requires two-thirds voter approval for non-park uses, including schools, on dedicated parkland. A charter amendment only requires a simple majority to pass.

A “yes" vote would extend the lease of San Diego High in Balboa Park and allow San Diego Unified to invest some $30 million on improvements to the school.

Supporters argue that San Diego High is an iconic school that should be preserved and upgraded. San Diego Unified has put on hold plans to spend $30 million on improvements to the school amid the leasing controversy.

A “no” vote would likely mean the demolishing of the school and have the 34 acres returned to the city for park use by 2024.

Opponents argue that the district has sufficient bond funds to build outside the park. The Balboa Park Heritage group filed a lawsuit to counter what they call a “biased and argumentative” initiative. The group says “the lease would have been an illegal sale or transfer of the dedicated park lands to be used for non-park uses in 1974, but for the district’s explicit promise to return the Lands to park use and full City ownership in 2024.”

Related Articles:

San Diego Union-Tribune

Voice of San Diego

Measure J. CHARTER AMENDMENT REGARDING USE OF LEASE REVENUE FROM MISSION BAY PARK.

Measure J would amend the charter to increase, from 25% to 35%, the allocation of annual Mission Bay Park lease revenues exceeding $20 million, for capital improvements in San Diego Regional Parks; allow Council to add City-owned parkland to Mission Bay Park’s boundaries; combine and coordinate construction of Mission Bay Park improvements identified in this section; and extend operation of this section until 2069.

It’s important to go back about 8 years to understand the context of Measure J.

In 2008, voters approved Prop. C, which required 25 percent of Mission Bay lease revenues over $20 million support regional park projects. Most of that money has gone to Mission Bay Park. But Balboa Park and other regional parks also have many needs. This measure would bring more money to those parks while still allocating 65 percent of lease revenues to Mission Bay Park.

A YES vote would: vote would increase the allocation of Mission Bay Park lease revenues for improvement in regional parks and allow the city to add parkland to Mission Bay Park's boundaries.

A NO vote would: keep things the way they are. Mission Bay’s arrangement would end in 2039

Measure K. CHARTER AMENDMENT REQUIRING RUNOFF ELECTION FOR THE OFFICES OF MAYOR, CITY ATTORNEY AND COUNCIL MEMBER.

Measure K would amend the City Charter to eliminate the provision that elects a candidate for Mayor, City Attorney, or Council member to office if the candidate receives a majority vote (50%+1) in the June primary election, and instead requires a runoff election at the November general election between the two candidates who received the most votes in the primary election.

The 50% percent, plus 1 primary rule has been part of the city elections since 1989. The term, primary itself, implies another election will follow, but in most cases, there hasn't been a runoff. Traditionally, primaries have much lower voter turnout than general elections. Measure K would bring San Diego’s local candidate and proposition elections into conformity with California’s elections.

A “yes” vote would change the City Charter, beginning in 2018, to allow the candidates who finish in the top two in a primary, to run against each other in the November general election. It would eliminate the rule that ends elections in the primary if a candidate or measure gets at least 50 percent plus one of the vote.

Supporters include San Diego Firefighters Union, Alliance San Diego, Democratic Party of San Diego, City Council President Sherri Lightner, and City Councilmembers Todd Gloria, David Alvarez, Marti Emerald, and Myrtle Cole.

Supporters argue that it is undemocratic to have the biggest city races decided when the fewest number of voters are participating. For too long, special interests in San Diego have taken advantage of this rule and bought access to power by influencing elections when the fewest voters are taking part. Yes on K will mean a more competitive democracy, and prevent insiders from controlling the power structure at City Hall. The additional costs for Measure K are minimal and vastly overstated by the opposition. The Independent Budget Analyst predicts that if Measure K passes, election costs would be less than a few pennies per voter.

A “no” vote would keep the status quo and end elections in the primary if a candidate or measure gets 50 percent plus one.

Opponents argue Measure K is an expensive political stunt by the Democrats to control elections. They argue that San Diego’s election cycle runs fine the way it is, and this measure, rushed through the process, will only make elections more expensive and less transparent. Opponents also argue Measure K will bring more money and special interests into elections, not less as supporters suggest.

Opponents include Republican Party of San Diego, Lincoln Club of San Diego, Mayor Kevin Faulconer, and City Councilmembers Chris Cate, Mark Kersey, Scott Sherman, and Lori Zapf.

Related Articles:

IVN San Diego

Voice of San Diego

Measure L. CHARTER AMENDMENT REQUIRING CITIZENS’ INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM MEASURES TO BE PLACED ON NOVEMBER GENERAL ELECTION BALLOTS, UNLESS THE COUNCIL DECIDES TO SUBMIT THEM TO VOTERS EARLIER.

Shall the Charter be amended to require qualified citizens’ initiative and referendum measures to be submitted to voters on the next November general election ballot and not at a June primary election.

Measure L, similar to Measure K, would require that ballot initiatives be decided in the November elections, when the most people participate. It would also bring conform San Diego’s ballot initiative process with statewide elections. The same supporters and opponents attached to Measure K are the same for Measure L.

A “yes” vote would change the City Charter, beginning in 2018, to allow initiatives to be only available for voters in the November General Election.

Supporters include San Diego Firefighters Union, Independent Voter Project, Alliance San Diego, Democratic Party of San Diego, City Council President Sherri Lightner, and City Councilmembers Todd Gloria, David Alvarez, Marti Emerald, and Myrtle Cole.

A “no” vote would keep the status quo and allow initiatives to be voted on in the primary.

Opponents argue Measure L is an expensive political stunt by the Democrats to control elections. They argue that San Diego’s election cycle runs fine the way it is, and this measure, rushed through the process, will only make elections more expensive and less transparent. Opponents also argue Measure L will bring more money and special interests into elections, not less as the supporters suggest.

Opponents include Republican Party of San Diego, Lincoln Club of San Diego, Mayor Kevin Faulconer, and City Councilmembers Chris Cate, Mark Kersey, Scott Sherman, and Lori Zapf.

Related Articles:

IVN San Diego

Voice of San Diego

Measure M. AFFORDABLE HOUSING: INCREASING THE LIMIT ON THE NUMBER OF UNITS THE CITY AND CERTAIN PUBLIC AGENCIES ARE ALLOWED TO HELP DEVELOP.

Measure M would increase the maximum number of housing units the City and certain other public agencies are allowed to help develop, construct, or acquire for people with low incomes by 38,680. Measure M does not approve specific housing units, funds for development, remove requirements that otherwise apply, or take any other action.

As a state, California is facing a critical housing shortage. The most recent LAO report from Sacramento states California ranks 49th out of 50 states for providing housing for its population. The only state worse than California is Alaska.

To that end, Measure M would dedicate resources to building nearly 40,000 affordable housing units. The increase is based on a San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA), which identified it as the number of low and very low income units needed in the City by 2020. Coupled with the 3,247 units of remaining capacity, the additional 38,680 units would provide the City with a total remaining capacity of 41,927 units.

A “yes” vote would not raise taxes or authorize the expenditure of any funds. It also would not require or approve the development of specific affordable housing units. None of the City’s requirements for affordable housing projects would be eliminated, waived, or reduced. Affordable housing developments would still need to obtain appropriate permits, and go through the City’s standard public review process.

Supporters argue that the city of San Diego must build additional housing units to meet its growing population demands. Measure M contemplates this and responsibly adds affordable housing options for residents in the coming years. Passage requires a simple majority.

A “no” vote would keep the city’s current affordable housing pace.

An opposing ballot argument has not been filed.

Related Articles:

San Diego Union-Tribune

Voice of San Diego

Measure N. NON-MEDICAL CANNABIS BUSINESS TAX.

If California voters approve Proposition 64 legalizing marijuana in the state, Measure N would impose a gross receipt tax, for general revenue purposes, on non-medical cannabis businesses operating in the City. The rate would initially be set at 5% and increase to 8% on July 1, 2019, with a maximum rate increase to 15%. The measure applies in addition to any state taxes and would create an indeterminate amount of long-term revenue.

San Diego voters will be asked whether, if California voters legalize marijuana by passing Proposition 64, they want to tax local businesses that sell marijuana. Measure N could generate an estimated $22 million for San Diego city coffers in the first year. The estimate is part of a fiscal analysis of Measure N, which will go before voters in November.

Proposition 64 would decriminalize recreational marijuana use. The drug is currently allowed under state law only for medical purposes. The tax, proposed by Councilman Mark Kersey, is designed to cover city regulatory costs of marijuana legalization, which is projected to be around $650,000 annually.

A “yes” vote would approve a 5 percent marijuana tax of gross receipts in the first year, rising to 8 percent the second year. The City Council would have discretion in the future to hike the rate to 15 percent. Marijuana sold for medical use would be exempted. This measure will only go into effect if the statewide measure passes.

Supporters argue that the added tax is the responsible way to defray the expected law enforcement costs should Proposition 64 pass. The intent of this measure is to protect the city from the potential costs of this new industry. If approved by voters, Measure N should generate enough funds to ensure budget priorities like infrastructure and public safety are not negatively impacted by the costs to the city of legalized recreational marijuana.

Supporters include City Councilmembers Mark Kersey, Marti Emerald, and Lori Zapf.

A “no” vote would not place an extra tax on recreational marijuana use in San Diego County.

Opponents argue that taxing recreational marijuana at the local level will only drive the drug to the black market and make it more dangerous. They say this is a money grab by the city council that hasn’t been properly vetted or thought through.

Opponents include Marijuana Collective.

Related Articles:

San Diego Union-Tribune

Voice of San Diego