The clock may be ticking on a new funding scheme to expand San Diego's Convention Center.
In August, state appeal court justices ruled against room-tax surcharges passed by city hotel owners in a controversial private election, saying that the levies should have been put on the ballot.
Now, with rumblings of imminent NFL plans to put two teams in L.A. -- and the Chargers touting a hybridized stadium-convention facility in East Village — delaying a decision on the expansion project for long could have major downsides
Meantime, NBC 7 has learned that behind the scenes, there's been extensive lobbying and maneuvering to come up with alternatives.
The $520 million project’s upfront cost was set to be underwritten in large part by the room-tax surcharges, with additional funding from the city and Port District.
The Convention Center recently observed its 25th anniversary, and it's beginning to show its age and the effects of $30 million worth of deferred maintenance.
Officials say it's essential to expand the center to keep Comic-Con, its prime tenant, and attract a greater share of the large-meeting market in competition with other cities.
The attorney for plaintiffs who prevailed in the lawsuit said they've told "the city" they want the expansion to take place north of Harbor Drive instead of on the waterfront, that they’re opposed to "corporate welfare" and that they believe that any form of tax funding should go to the ballot.
"After the appellate ruling,” attorney Cory Briggs told NBC 7 in an interview Tuesday, “we shared some ideas for alternatives, five different alternatives that are dependent on going across the street that wouldn't involve the level of corporate subsidies that you're talking about here.
"The city was completely dismissive of those ideas under the prior mayor. I think Mayor Faulconer, he's at least shown to me that he's willing to listen to other ideas and actually spend some time and resources vetting them somewhat."
A spokesman for the mayor's office confirms that discussions have taken place with Briggs and numerous other "stakeholders” — although there’s no memory of five specific alternatives — and that "all options are on the table," including the bay front expansion proposal.
Local
City Attorney Jan Goldsmith said he buys the ballot approach: "It is case law and it's sound case law. Let's move on from that and not test the boundaries of the law any more. Let's go with the most legally supportable — and I agree that ought to be voter approval. This is, after all, a tax."
Goldsmith apparently hasn't been privy to the talks going on behind-the-scenes.
In an interview Tuesday with NBC 7, he said he thinks whatever Cory Briggs and the mayor's office have been talking about should be made public, in the interest of "transparency and open government."
As for the notion that voters and other financiers could be swayed by the Chargers’ concept of extra convention space within a stadium footprint, a leading local taxpayer advocate is skeptical.
"If the idea of a downtown stadium is the tail that wags the dog in whatever circuitous route they get to it, that's not something voters want,” said Richard Rider, chairman of San Diego Tax Fighters.
“They don't want to go downtown. They like the stadium where it is. We can argue about rebuilding it, renewing it, improving it. But nobody wants a stadium downtown except the downtown establishment."
