READER'S EDITORIAL: WHY WE NEED TO RETURN TO MAJORITY RULE FOR PASSING A BUDGET

Printer-friendly versionPrinter-friendly version Share this

 

By Paul Garver

 

October 20, 2010 (San Diego) -- Last week, Assemblyman Nathan Fletcher cut a deal for his crucial yes vote on the long delayed budget. What did he demand for voting yes?

 

Elimination of the $386 million cap on San Diego’s downtown redevelopment. Fletcher claims the resulting building boom, funded by taxpayer dollars, will do wonders for our economy. Then why did he have to do it in secret, in the dead of night? Fletcher says because L.A. lawmakers would scuttle it. Why? They knew the real reason behind lifting the cap—so the Chargers can use taxpayer dollars to build a downtown stadium. You see, L.A. wants an NFL football team and if we build the Chargers a stadium, the Chargers will supposedly stay here.

Alex Spanos, the owner of the Chargers, is a billionaire. If the stadium project made economic sense, he’d build it himself. But it doesn’t make sense. So he wants to use taxpayer money to build it. For a long time the Chargers claimed they didn’t need taxpayer money. Now they say a 62,000 seat stadium will cost $800 million but they only have $300 million—so they need $500 million from us. Of course this is just the start of a bait and switch because you need a 70,000 seat stadium (like Qualcomm) to host a Super Bowl and you’d be stupid to build a new stadium that can’t host one when you already have one that can. So you can bet your bottom tax dollar (because that’s all you’ll have left) that we’ll be asked to kick in a lot more.
 

After first saying they wouldn’t need taxpayer dollars, the Chargers backtracked and said that if they did, they would ask the public to vote on it. It turns out the best part of Fletcher’s deal from the Chargers point of view is that the Center City Development Corporation (CCDC) doesn’t legally need to ask for taxpayer approval to issue bonds for building the stadium. So much for our voting on it.
 

Fletcher says this will create thousands of jobs and invigorate downtown, increasing the tax base which could then be used to build schools and libraries and fire stations. Wait, wasn’t that what PETCO Park was supposed to do? It now seems that the increased tax base attributed to PETCO Park is instead going to be used to build another stadium. Do they really expect us to believe that a new NFL stadium used for just eight home games each year is going to pay for itself by increasing the tax base of an already bustling and booming downtown?
 

Each day without a budget costs us millions because it lowers our credit rating and increases the cost of borrowing. Fletcher’s deal illustrates the hidden cost of requiring a 2/3 majority to pass a budget. That cost is in the special deals extracted by the last few representatives needed to achieve that supermajority. The good news is that we can fix this in the upcoming election by voting yes on Prop. 25. This will return us to a simple majority for passing a budget. Not surprisingly, Fletcher is against this. Might I suggest we vote him out with a simple majority, too?


Paul Garver is the Democratic candidate running in the 75th Assembly district against incumbent Nathan Fletcher.  The opinions expessed in this editorial reflect the views of its author and do not necessarily reflect the views of East County Magazine. If you wish to submit an editorial for consideration, please contact editor@eastcountymagazine.org.

 


Error message

Support community news in the public interest! As nonprofit news, we rely on donations from the public to fund our reporting -- not special interests. Please donate to sustain East County Magazine's local reporting and/or wildfire alerts at https://www.eastcountymedia.org/donate to help us keep people safe and informed across our region.