San Diego voters are being asked on their Nov. 8 ballots to allow city officials to place child care centers on city parkland, where they are currently not permitted. There was no formal ballot argument against the measure filed with the City Clerk’s Office. Here are two essays on the topic.
Valderhaug is a retired San Diego chief deputy city attorney. He lives in La Mesa.
I am not opposed to allowing child care facilities on dedicated parkland in the city of San Diego. However, I think the voting public is entitled to a clear explanation of Measure H.
San Diego City Councilmember Raul Campillo’s essay in favor of the measure fails to notify the public that City Charter Section 55 is meant to protect dedicated parks from non-park uses by requiring a two-thirds vote of the voters to allow a non-park use. The mayor and City Council have decided once again (as they did in allowing the gift of 34 acres of Balboa Park to the San Diego Unified School District) to avoid the two-thirds vote protection by using the tricky loophole of amending charter Section 55. That is practically a fraud on the voters.
Campillo also neglected to point out that passage of Measure H would allow unlimited discretion by the mayor — without public notice or public or council review — to authorize profit-making enterprises to utilize, for up to 100 years — as the city did with the Balboa Park property — free of charge any or all of any regional or local park.
While Measure H specifically informs the voters that “the City Manager” would administer and control such child care uses and documents, the fact is that the mayor will be the one and only decider about rent, if any; size; location; and terms and duration of use. If anyone still thinks Mayor Todd Gloria should be given such authority, they must have their heads buried in the sand. Will another $100,000 campaign contribution buy a long-term, free child care lease in Balboa Park (like the 100-year free lease to the school district)? Measure H would certainly allow that, without even public or council review.
My point is, Measure H is very poorly thought out and drafted. Once again, the city attorney has allowed this to happen. A “yes” vote on Measure H will very likely lead to huge problems for both the public and the City Council in the future.
I thank my lucky stars that I live outside the jurisdiction of the city, and am represented, at least minimally, by public servants, as opposed to the blatantly self-serving, small-minded politicians presently in charge in San Diego. It’s obvious they haven’t even bothered to put any thought into this very important Measure H, or even allowed the public park advisory groups to help them understand what Measure H actually means.