Forget the hyperbole about church steeples, the ballot language lawsuits or the conflicting claims swirling about Chula Vista's proposed height limit.
Proposition E on the June ballot would do two things:
1) It would give a haircut to allowable heights on Third Avenue, Chula Vista's downtown during simpler times.
2) It would lock into place the general plan-recommended heights for the rest of the city, allowing exceptions only after a public vote. Whether taxpayers or developers would pay the election costs is not specified.
If seven parcels on Third Avenue were the only issue, the initiative would be innocuous enough. The Third Avenue business district is dying, no one is known to have any serious plans to build there (high rise or otherwise), and this would be a padlock on the front gate.
The initiative's real damage would be to the rest of Chula Vista. Proposition E would be a ball and chain on progress in a city striving to shake off bedroom status and become a commercial and employment center in its own right. No one has really built high rise in the city during the last quarter-century, so why the fear of a stampede now with the real estate industry on life support?
Some aspects of the future can be anticipated.
Chula Vista has two hospitals that eventually will need high-rise patient towers and senior-related facilities to survive. Money-losing Scripps Mercy Chula Vista has no current plans to expand. Sharp Chula Vista is only in the early stages on a 120-foot-tall project. Both institutions oppose Proposition E.
Chula Vista has an economic engine called the county courthouse. Chula Vista can foolishly discourage expansion and continue to see cases transferred elsewhere, or it can support enlargement, generating revenues and keeping trials close to home. Sure, in the governmental hierarchy, the county trumps the city and could ignore the height limit. But courthouses need ample office space nearby for attorneys and support personnel. That would be much more difficult with an 84-foot height limit in place.
The university campus apparently would be exempted. But what about high-rise student housing nearby? Or, would Chula Vistans rather tempt fate and possible mini-dorms?
There are two Chula Vistas today, the burgeoning east side with a median household income around $72,000. Then there is the west side, median income around $38,000 with one household in 10 at or below the poverty line.
Chula Vista's downtown of the future will be the Eastern Urban Core. If the west side ever wants to rebound, if it ever wants to have jobs, thriving restaurants and a more upscale level of retail in the neighborhood, there must be certainty and change. Risk-taking retailers and developers need to know what the rules are, not roll the dice on winning public approval in an election. They also need a more affluent and denser customer base.
Proposition E could have an unintended consequence, torpedoing sound planning principles. If a public election is required in any event, a developer proposing a high-rise project may choose to pursue a ballot measure before dealing with the regulatory process. A developer armed with a resounding public vote of approval can easily say no to a professional planner, planning commissioner or City Council member seeking to tweak some objectionable feature.
This initiative is ballot box planning at its worst. It would straitjacket Chula Vista from adapting as market forces change. It would require expensive elections and would yank the welcome mat away from future commerce and jobs.
We recommend a No vote on Proposition E.
