During a luncheon meeting March 8, Mayor Bob Filner unfurled his attack flag and described his defensive charge into the midst of the hotelier hordes bent upon dominating the city.
Casting himself in heroic garb befitting a man of the people, the mayor explained his first large-scale assault on what he calls “the old ways.” This may well be his first last stand at City Hall.
“I think it’s just a matter of change,” the mayor said, assuring the audience that change will make the city stronger and the hotel owners more money.
Experience teaches that change comes in many flavors. Most of the changes of the last 10 years have led to a city limping along in the aftermath of a nutty city attorney, a strong mayor disconnected from daily struggles and an astonishing level of internal warfare to preoccupy the city administration and those working around it.
What destruction occurred with City Attorney Mike Aguirre was modestly quelled by his successor, but some of the structural chaos continues.
In 2008, Rep. Filner endorsed and supported Aguirre for re-election despite the absurd and destructive things Aguirre did while in office.
The changed structure brought to the office of the city attorney by Aguirre and his cronies during his four-year stint left an enduring imprint on the office, especially that odd streak of “independence” that cushioned the current city attorney as he publicly opposed Filner’s positions. Ironic.
Filner is now shocked and dismayed by a far milder version of behavior he previously warmly endorsed. Now, it’s unethical.
In his lunchtime talk, Filner observed generally that we’re all in favor of tourism and making the economy stronger. He then launched into an explanation of his position on the Tourism Marketing District surcharge controversy. Filner supports his refusal to sign the Tourism Marketing District agreement with a series of points.
Point 1: It’s a tax, not a fee, requiring a vote of the public, which was not taken. Filner claims that the whole thing – a 2 percent surcharge -- was set up to avoid a public vote on taxes. In fact, recently, when a public vote on an increased hotel tax was offered to the voters, the hotel owners vigorously sought to defeat it. Filner insists that under California’s Constitution, if you impose a tourist tax, you must go to the voters. What did the hotel owners do? They called it a fee, which is self-assessed within the hotel owners’ organization.
Point 2: Filner says a majority of the membership of the marketing district voted against the 2 percent self-assessment. Because the internal vote is weighted by the value of the member’s property, the 10 largest hotels have enough voting power to overwhelm all the small hotels, a subgroup purportedly unlikely to gain much advantage from the Tourism Marketing District’s ad expenditures.
Filner points out that while approval of the marketing district’s 2 percent surcharge within the hotel owners’ organization was 92 percent, but by a simple tally, the result is different. When each member entity has a single vote, 1,300 ballots were sent out, but only 250 votes returned to support the surcharge; 317, or 56 percent (317/567) -- a clear majority -- voting against the measure.
So what is the proper voting formula? Ah, the courts!
Point 3: A mandatory assessment, using the power of the city to enforce it, creates an improper situation that might be avoided if the city was not otherwise involved. Filner points out that representatives of the hotel owners insist that the city must be involved or their members will opt out. This from a group that otherwise rejects government oversight, seeks to privatize government functions and does not like regulation.
Point 4: Filner says the 40-year agreement is too long.
Point 5: The city gets only 10 percent of the total revenues generated from the marketing district’s 2 percent surcharge, only $60 million for the city over the total life of the agreement. Filner says this is too little and wants to re-negotiate the number.
Here is where the deep chocolate of politics begins to bubble up, irresistible to the political nostrils of many in private and public offices. Filner put it simply: Why doesn’t the city get $100 million or $200 million of the expected $600 million total?
Query: Would a higher percentage for the city avoid the need for a public vote?
Negotiations ended in a suit against Filner, alongside pre-existing suits challenging the surcharge. Filner seeks to avoid signing an “illegal” agreement.
A conundrum: Why isn’t the city attorney able to defend the mayor? Answer: The city has already agreed to align itself with the Tourism Marketing District regarding the legality of the 2 percent surcharge. Thus, the city attorney is poised against the mayor, who must now acquire expensive outside counsel.
Welcome to a changing San Diego.
Coffey is an attorney based in San Diego. He can be reached at daniel.coffey@sddt.com. Comments may be published as Letters to the Editor.
Press ESC | Close [X]
