By Frank Landis, Conservation Committee Chair
I’m writing this on March 14, so I have no idea how the whole coronavirus thing will have developed between now and the time you read this. Before I succumb to the inevitable and mention it again, I want to go over a bit of ancient, undead history: results of the March 3 election with Measures A and B.
Unfortunately, I don’t quite know those results. As I write this, the latest update from the San Diego Registrar of Voters is that with 60,000 provisional ballots still to count, Measure A is going down 394,398 to 373,356 (No 51.37%, Yes 48.63%). Measure B went down convincingly 58% No to 42% Yes. Probably both measures will go down, but Measure A is so close that no one’s conceding until all the votes are counted.
On the presumption that Measure A went down, while a worked example of how Measure A was supposed to stop sprawl—Measure B—succeeded wildly, well, there’s been a bit of analysis by the punditry, and I figured I’d give my two bits’ worth as well.
The first thing that caught my attention from the registrars’ data is that 2,920 more people voted on Measure B than on Measure A. Presumably it was less controversial and easier to decide on? Given that San Diego has a strong NIMBY culture and developments generally get shot down by voters, this isn’t surprising.
However, Measure A was supposed to make it easier to stop sprawl, and a few too many people didn’t want to do that. Well, about half the people did want to, about half didn’t, and then there was a small minority who pushed it into the loss column. My guess is that Measure A was undone by a few things. One is that it was opposed by the Democratic Party, and some people do take that into account. The other is that there’s a cadre of voters out there who vote no on initiatives as a matter of personal policy, whatever they are.
With regard to why the San Diego democrats failed by one vote in the central committee to support Measure A, I’ve heard a fairly detailed version of the events from a friend who was there, but I think that putting it in print might cause issues. Suffice it to say that the environmentalists are not as organized as the labor unions. There were more union representatives speaking out against A than there were environmentalists speaking out for it.
This is a recurring theme in San Diego politics, which often does base decisions on important issues using a combination of public nose count of vociferous individuals and, a more private accounting based on, erm, back room conversations, rather than deciding complex issues based on rational, defensible analyses of what would be best for the community going forward. This is one way to make decisions, but it’s rarely an optimal one.
It’s also why I keep asking you to stick your nose into local politics. Getting it counted matters.
Going forward, I think the COVID-19 may well have as much to say about development in the next five years as the apparent failure of Measure A. Actually, I can only imagine what you think about talking about that stupid virus anymore, so let’s talk about the economic impacts if we have a recession, let alone a depression, as a result of it. From an environmental perspective, it’s not all bad.
We’re hopefully at the end of the long bull market that was causing all this development. What has been happening with all this leapfrog sprawl is that there was so much money floating around the world looking for investments that companies were investing in bad ideas like Newland Sierra. There basically aren’t any good sprawl sites left in San Diego, so until the Big One, we’re likely to be stuck with every economic upturn heralding a swarm of investors trying to get projects built and get their profits out before the next disaster hits.
That development was being designed by the Newland Corporation, but the money behind it was from a Japanese developer who had never before tried to build in the US and reportedly had little idea what they were getting into. Assuming that Newland Sierra is currently dead thanks to Measure B (and note, we haven’t abandoned the court case against it yet either), presumably the property will be sold and resold over the next few years until someone decides to try to build something there, hires Newland, and the whole goat dance starts all over again.
Similar things are likely to happen with the other reported six (or is it 30?) sprawl developments under consideration in the County, which is why it’s a pity that Measure A didn’t pass. Well, maybe it did at the last minute, and I don’t know that yet. If so, this part of the column will be an ironic misfire.
Conservation Over the Next Few Years
Still trying and failing to not talk about the virus, but it may be the pandemic that changes many things. If you’re worried that this is the start of the apocalyptic end of civilization, what I’d point out, from my book Hot Earth Dreams, is that the crash of civilization isn’t really about the crises and disasters, because something’s almost always going seriously wrong somewhere. Instead it’s about how we respond to each disaster. The only way you’ll know that we’re in serious trouble is if things fall apart, and new things don’t get built from the ruins. We’re nowhere near that, and I don’t think COVID-19 is going to take down civilization either. That doesn’t mean that anyone should be careless about it, but I’d suggest taking this as a wakeup call to make your life more resilient against disasters, rather than a doomsday klaxon.
Even if the developers go away for a few years due to an economic downturn, we’ve got some other issues to engage on, including the litigation spawned by this last bit of economic exuberance.
One big issue coming down the pike is that the state plans to both implement the VTP to clear vegetation, and simultaneously they’re planning on planting huge numbers of native trees to sequester carbon and to plant massive numbers of native plants to decrease landscaping water use. On the one hand, yay, CNPS won! They want natives everywhere! On the other hand, we don’t want industrial monocultures of freeway buckwheat to feed the pollinators and Monterey pine plantations sequestering carbon either, although both species are welcome parts of more diverse landscapes. State CNPS is working on this issue from a horticultural end to promote diversity, and we’re going to have to deal with it from the political end down here as well, by commenting on landscaping lists and similar. If this becomes an issue on something you are working on, please contact conservation@cnpssd.org and we’ll advocate for diversity together.