You would think after the drubbing San Diego’s labor unions took in November over their support for various attempts on the ballot to raise taxes, they’d think twice before mixing it up with the fiscal reform crowd again.
But it appears many of the same foes may tangle again sooner than expected over a referendum to overturn a so-called “big box ordinance” passed by the San Diego City Council in December. Foes of the ban turned in 53,948 signatures to the San Diego City Clerk on December 29. Just over 32,000 must be valid for the Clerk to call a special election on the matter.
The Lincoln Club of San Diego, San Diego Tax Fighters, and the San Diego County Republican Party all issued news releases indicating support for the referendum, vowing to work for its passage. And unlike their fight against Proposition D, the half-cent sales tax initiative, reformers should have some actual money coming to spend on the effort thanks to the interests of businesses like WalMart, which was the not-so-subtle target of the ordinance.
Council President Tony Young says if the signatures are confirmed, he will bring the issue back before the San Diego City Council. However, it’s a very different council than the one which voted for the ordinance. Supporters Ben Hueso and Donna Frye are gone, replaced by David Alvarez and Lorie Zapf.
County Registrar of Voters Deborah Seiler estimated that a special election would cost between $2.8 million and $3.4 million, since there is no election currently scheduled in 2011 (although I suspect there will be one if the state of California and Governor Brown get their way). This doesn’t take into account the costs of diverted time and attention plus campaign spending on both sides if this sucker is forced to a vote.
Labor union officials claim on Twitter than polling shows voters evenly divided on this issue. Hello, didn’t the unions say the same thing about Prop D, which went down in flames?
I’m not a big WalMart fan. I rarely shop at WalMart, mainly due to my fear of ending on up PeopleOfWalMart.com But many people do enjoy shopping there. If the San Diego City Council has an ounce of good sense, it will take this referendum to heart, repeal its ill-advised big box ordinance, save us a boat load of dough taxpayers can ill afford to see wasted, and take decisions to approve so-called big box stores on a case-by-case basis.
Councilmembers and constituents will still have plenty of say over whether a neighborhood needs a 120,000 square foot WalMart without obstructionist regulation. In some neighborhoods the savings and the job generation would be an asset. In others, not so much. Businesses deserve a fair hearing on a level playing field and if constituents direct their representatives to deny them the right to expand fair and square, so be it.
Comments 5
Author
For the record, let me point out that my first political prediction for 2011 is that the State of California WILL call a special election this year. This is not a real stretch by any means. The LL Crystal Ball is just warming up.
It looks like Jerry Brown is targeting June 2011 to raise taxes: http://www.sacbee.com/2010/12/30/3288273/brown-plans-to-take-tax-hike-to.html#mi_rss=Top%20Stories
Could the Wal-Mart vote be held at the same time?
D7 Voter, you’re absolutely right on track. I predict a June 2011 election and this would be the San Diego City Council’s rationale to put this referendum to a popular vote and “save” the voters money. It’s relative, of course, since it would still cost city taxpayers a pretty penny, just not quite as much as a stand alone election.
San Diego and Imperial Counties Labor Council Secretary-Treasurer/CEO Lorena Gonzalez took issue earlier this evening with my comment about polling. She asserted on Twitter (a publicly published forum, hence my use of the material here) the Labor Council’s polling shows voters “overwhelmingly” in favor of the ordinance as passed by the San Diego City Council.
When I asked if the Labor Council has used the same pollster as it did during the ill-fated Prop D Campaign (referring to the slide provided here on Rostra by pollster John Nienstedt showing the flawed poll numbers on Prop D), she answered: “it is a different pollster. And we ditched Tom Shepard as a consultant too :)”
Funny given that Rostra blogger Jim Sills just cited Shepard’s contribution to the results in the District 4 County Supervisor’s race in the same election cycle.
As my more astute admirers will recall, earlier this fall I all but guaranteed a statewide “special election” in 2011. But since both of said admirers are on Christmas vacation, I can offer no ready verification of my prediction/promise.
Actually, to call it a “special election” is a bit of a misnomer. We almost ALWAYS have a not-so-special statewide election in the odd-numbered years — at least in recent years. The Democrats’ voracious appetite for higher taxes drives this odd (numbered) bi-annual rite of spring. Or rite of summer.
My insightful prediction was the reason I wanted to rush a “DeMaio” prop (hopefully to force more managed competition, or perhaps to mandate a city council candidate must first prove they can balance their own checkbook) to ballot qualification — to catch the conservative 2011 special election wave.
But while there will be this 2011 CA election, the geniuses at city hall don’t HAVE to schedule the Walmart referendum to match that election. In truth, I can’t imagine they wouldn’t do so for the savings — assuming that they are dumb enough not to repeal the ill-advised Walmart superstore ban in council chambers.
The timing is this: The city has at most 30 days to verify the signatures. Never doubt that the sigs are good. Walmart did a 100% verification effort, so the validity rate will be exceptionally high.
After city verification, the city politicos have only 10 days to rescind the ordinance and put an end to this embarrassing episode. If they don’t, they MUST schedule a referendum election within 11 months. Apparently the timing of this quick referendum effort precludes the city from waiting until the 2012 primaries to have citizens vote on the measure.
From what we are hearing from the DE FACTO boss of our city (Lorena Gonzalez), labor has a poll that shows overwhelming voter support FOR the Walmart ban. And we all know what terrific polling acumen she brings to the table.
Apparently Lorena has never been in an election prop battle where her opponents will spend as much as her unions will. Walmart ain’t some Tea Party that can’t raise big bucks.
It would be an expensive education for her. The only upside is that it would waste labor union resources that would otherwise be spent on other anti-taxpayer, anti-business, anti-consumer causes and/or candidates.
So assuming Lorena wants another (losing) fight, the only way we rescind the ban at city hall (and avoid the election) is for one (or more) of the city council Gang of Four labor sycophants to vote against their master. I still stand by my earlier prediction post here that such will be the case.
But tto paraphrase another pundit, “No one ever went broke underestimating the political intelligence of liberal city council politicians.” We shall see.
BTW, just got off KOGO with Cliff Albert, where we excoriated the anti-Walmart mentality. Fun interview.