Why a referendum wouldn't really work

Mary Lou Supple, former chairperson of the NRA, is kind enough to submit some guidance about why a binding referendum on the waterfront wouldn't work. It's simple really and one I should have noted immediately given my earlier questions about what role the mayor play's in Waterfront development.

The reason why there can be no binding referendum on the final disposition of the NRA waterfront property is because the City does not own the property; the NRA owns it.

The rationale for creating redevelopment authorities was to take the development out of the political process. And this worked fairly well when the NRA was selling off lots for redevelopment. It had a large cash flow, paid director and staff. Right now, there would be a hotel, and the city would be subsidizing the hotel's parking had the 1990 LDA with Roger Foster not been challenged by a new NRA board after 3 members resigned.

That contract, declared null in 1999 by Judge Richard Welch because its benefits to the developer were not in the public's best interest, and that HUD had said it would not approve it. Despite HUD's disinterest in the matter later, their approval was necessary at the time the contract was signed. The LDA would allow Foster to purchase the property at a 70% discount on the appraised value and require the NRA, at its own cost to build and maintain a parking lot for the hotel on the West Lot.
Foster would pay the NRA (and subsequently, the City after the NRA disbanded), $35,000 a year for parking. The debt service on the cost of building that parking lot would be many times the payments Foster would make. The City would be required to maintain it, and yet the public could not use it. (Unless the hotel did not need it.? I think that meant when it was empty and no one worked there. I admit I never fully understood what was called "flex" parking.)

After the land was again unencumbered, the NRA sent out the 2000 survey in order to find out what the will of the people was and attempt to carry it out. Anything other than selling the lots to a developer, which is still an an option for the NRA, would require a partnership with the City. That's where the idea that the City owned this property arose. It does not, and a referendum on use of a property it does not own is unenforceable. The City might as well attempt a binding resolution on the use of Karp's land.

What the City COULD do is a binding resolution on what it would be willing to give the NRA to fund a Park or another use of the waterfront. The problem there is that, if the public voted to fund a park, the City would be obligated to fund it. If the public voted to fund another use, the NRA could simply refuse to accept the funds, because it owns the land.

Now, here's an interesting idea. What if at some point the concept of a park went forward and the city holds an Proposition 2 1/2 override vote to see if people want to pay for the costs associated with maintaining the park.

That would be the ultimate binding referendum.