skip to main content

Listen

Read

Watch

Schedules

Programs

Events

Give

Account

Donation Heart Ribbon

Judge Rules Barrio Logan Community Plan Will Be Referendum On June 3 Ballot

Aired 4/7/14 on KPBS Midday Edition.

GUESTS:

Diane Takvorian, Executive Director, Environmental Health Coalition

Chris Wahl, public relations spokesman for San Diego's shipbuilding industry

Transcript

Evening Edition

Aired 4/4/14 on KPBS News.

A San Diego Superior Court judge has denied an injunction that would have put the Barrio Logan community plan into the courtroom.

A San Diego Superior Court judge has denied an injunction that would have put the Barrio Logan community plan into the courtroom.

The Environmental Health Coalition showed that one of three arguments made to prospective petition signers by the zoning plan's opponents was misleading, but it was not enough to keep voters from weighing in on the issue, Superior Court Judge Randa Trapp ruled following oral arguments.

The judge said she legally had "very limited power" to remove a ballot item.

The fate of the plan will now be decided by a referendum on the June 3 ballot.

When the Barrio Logan Community Plan was passed with a 5-4 vote by the San Diego City Council last year, the Port of San Diego Ship Repair Association fought back with a referendum. The Environmental Health Coalition, an activist group that supports the Barrio Logan community plan, had accused the association of directing their paid signature gatherers to lie to voters about the effects of the plan.

The judge agreed with EHC attorney Marco Gonzalez that petition signature-gatherers misled prospective signers by claiming the new zoning regulations would lead to 46,000 job losses and $14 billion in lost revenues.

However, she said he failed to meet his burden regarding other claims made by the signature-gatherers -- that the Navy could eventually leave San Diego and that residential development could encroach on industrial areas.

In the ruling, the court said:

“The evidence suggests that although the (ship repair) association could have been more proactive (the ship repair association) did not have ultimate control of the circulators, who were independent contractors.”

Friday is the last day for the San Diego City Clerk to set the ballot for the June election.

City News Service contributed to this report.

KPBS's Maureen Cavanaugh, Patty Lane and Alison St John contributed to the Midday and Evening Edition segments of this story.

Comments

Avatar for user 'DonWood'

DonWood | April 4, 2014 at 3:26 p.m. ― 5 months, 2 weeks ago

Only a San Diego judge would ever rule that it's now legal to flat out lie to voters, or pay others to lie to them.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Mmikey'

Mmikey | April 5, 2014 at 8:09 a.m. ― 5 months, 2 weeks ago

the voters actually get to vote on something important ?

wait and see

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'philosopher3000'

philosopher3000 | April 7, 2014 at 2:36 p.m. ― 5 months, 1 week ago

I'd like to know how much the "Shipping Industry" (i.e. military contractors) paid to influence this public election by paying for signatures? It seems unethical for an industry that gets it's money from taxpayers to use that money to influence politics.

Also, we better not find out that the real powers behind the "Barrio Logan Community Plan" are more San Diego Land Developers looking to make bank by developing the port.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'GandT'

GandT | June 1, 2014 at 2:46 p.m. ― 3 months, 2 weeks ago

Please us the live links to link to the judge's actual ruling... and NOT to your own tweet about it! Hmph, thought I was on the wrong website for a moment... we all expect better backup documentation from PBS, if you please <3

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'benz72'

benz72 | June 1, 2014 at 5:37 p.m. ― 3 months, 2 weeks ago

P3e3"It seems unethical for an industry that gets it's money from taxpayers to use that money to influence politics."

While I see your point about conflict of interest this sort of exclusion can cut both ways. Would you endorse removing franchise from current welfare recipients since it is a conflict of interest? For that matter, should government workers be allowed to vote for people who promise them pay raises? It seems like a sticky situation.

( | suggest removal )