Op Ed: How the ‘right to vote’ became a disposable principle for MLS 2 San Diego

How the ‘right to vote’ became a disposable principle for MLS 2 San Diego

by Steve Clare

In Parts 1 and 2 of this trilogy n double standards in US Soccer, I looked at the unfair criticism of Landon Donovan for supporting Mexico in the World Cup, and how the MLS “Don’t Cross the Line” anti-bigotry campaign, exonerates the wealthy and powerful from any sanction.

I am now going to do the very rare and point out some hypocrisy from my own side, from people I actually agree with.  In my view writers, both in the sporting and political field, should call out their own side for hypocrisy more than they call out those they disagree with.

San Diego is the jewel in the crown for American soccer leagues.

MLS and USL all want to be here. NASL would like to be there as well, depending upon whether operations of the league ever restart. It’s easy to see why. More people watch MLS in San Diego than any other city without an existing team. It placed top in the World Cup viewing figures. When I was in Brazil following the #USMNT, I met many fans from either San Diego or nearby Orange County. They made up an overwhelming majority of USA fans who did not live in an MLS market.

In my private capacity, in 2017 I spoke at a San Diego City Council meeting on behalf of Soccer City which is the adopted name of the campaign to allow use of the Chargers Stadium for a future Major League Soccer franchise in San Diego. Led by the financiers of FS Investors, my plea was simple. I wanted to persuade the nine Councillors to allow a vote on the FSI proposal to go on the November 2017 ballot.

This would have enabled MLS to award San Diego a franchise immediately. The crowd chanted “Let us vote, let us vote“. I talked up what benefit an MLS franchise could bring to a city, having seen it at first hand in Cascadia.

But my main talking point was a democratic one. The people had the right to decide on the merits of the proposal and keeping it off the ballot was a denial of democracy.

FSI’s head Nick Stone even referred to the constitutional right to vote to the press in May just before the 2017 Council Meeting:

“I’m very hopeful that when we get through it, people will have looked at it, thought more calmly about it and been a little less in the middle of all the drama and said, ‘I may not like the project, but I do really care about the ability of the citizens to express their constitutional right to vote. And I’m going to support that.

“Everybody loves their right to vote,” said Nick Stone of FS Investors on KPBS Midday Edition.

The vote fell and no proposal went on the ballot in November 2017.

Because (secretly) MLS had practically assured San Diego of a franchise should the proposal have been passed by the public, the award of the other berths suddenly ground to a halt. This was not regarded with universal chagrin in cities like of Sacramento, Detroit, San Antonio and Las Vegas, cities who may be unaware of the silent promise made to Nick Stone by MLS. MLS accordingly moved back its schedule and San Diego’s ‘only chance’ was not lost in 2017.

However none of that amounts to double standards.

In the intervening year, those opposed to FSI’s plan have organised themselves better.

They are mostly Stone’s rival business developers who want the land around the Chargers Stadium for their own plan. Because their plan has, at its core, a Gridiron field for San Diego State University (SDSU) Aztecs to play, the rival plan is called SDSU West.

There are consequently two rival plans on the November 6, 2018 ballot; Soccer City and SDSU West.

Voters will votes Yes/No on both individually and the one with the higher Yes Vote will get the nod, as long as it wins 50% or more of its own votes.

If neither reaches 50%, they both fall.

FSI though, having used ‘democracy’ arguments in their attempts to get on the November 2017 ballot, then let themselves badly down with a misstep.

On Wednesday April 18th 2018, they brought a lawsuit seeking to invalidate the signatures gathered for the SDSU Initiative, and asking it to be removed from the ballot.

They basically attempted to deprive the electorate of a vote on the SDSU West option, the antithesis of the very ethical point that had been at the root of their 2017 campaign.

Their grounds were tenuous. The core issue justifying the lawsuit was the use of the SDSU name in the title.

FS Investors’ case claimed that the State of California Educational Code Section 89005.5 explicitly states that both the Friends of SDSU and the entire SDSU West Initiative are illegally using the SDSU name which belongs to the State of California. Of the two ‘independent citizens’ who filed it, at least one is on the FSI payroll. That becomes relevant later on.

Dike Anyiwo is a local journalist and supporter of the Soccer City plan.

To him, the SDSU name in the title of the rival plan was mischievous, and designed to mislead. He wrote that the rival developers were hiding behind the SDSU brand.

“Without the spear and shield of SDSU, it is hard to distinguish the group of backers of this initiative as anything other than the cabal of San Diego’s old guard developers that they are, who are merely running interference on a larger more complete and comprehensive option for Mission Valley and all of San Diego.”

He has a point about interference. There was little discernible action from that cartel of developers to offer to do anything with the land until the Soccer City proposal forced their hand.

Needless to say, the other side were quick to point out FS Investors’ sudden lack of belief in the democratic process.

“This lawsuit is a desperate attempt by FS Investors to eliminate voter choice about the use of the stadium property and distract them from the details of their flawed SoccerCity initiative,” Friends of SDSU said.

“FS Investors are concerned because they know most voters support the SDSU West initiative, so they are trying to deny voters that choice.”

In June, FS Investors lost the suit with Superior Court Judge Joel Wohlfeil ruling that the suit’s petitioners, Carrie Taylor (an FS Investors’ employee) and David Dunbar did not have legal standing to pursue violations of the state education code. As they had no standing to enforce that code, their attempt to force the rival measure’s removal from the ballot due to a code breach fell.

More tellingly, Wohlfeil concluded that it isn’t illegal for supporters of the citizens’ initiative to use names that refer to San Diego State University.

“Friends of SDSU is not a term that falsely implies sponsorship or authorization of the initiative by the university.

“In fact, ‘Friends of” means just what it says: supporters and boosters of the university, not the university.”

So the case was rejected on merit and on standing. That seems pretty definitive but FSI appealed. The appeal sought an order removing the SDSU West plan ahead of the August deadline for printing the November ballot. That appeal was rejected in just one line.

The one page denial order issued by Presiding Justice Judith McConnell and her colleagues was to the point:

“The petition for writ of mandate and/or other appropriate relief has been read and considered by Presiding Justice McConnell and Associate Justices Nares and Aaron. The petition is denied.”

Presumably they saw nothing wrong in the first ruling (below).

I am far from qualified to rule on the legal aspects even less on the California Education Code, but I do feel that Soccer City has not done itself any favors by trying to use legal procedures to remove the SDSU West initiative from the ballot in 2018, having made the right to vote key to its attempts to be on the 2017 ballot.

It doesn’t suggest they have confidence that they will win on November 6. Nor does it suggest consistency.

As a result of this misstep, they have the worst of all worlds. They look hypocritical for invoking democracy and then opposing it when it suits them. They didn’t prevent SDSU West getting on November’s ballot anyway. And they wasted money on legal fees which surely could have been used elsewhere in the campaign.

When the decision was taken to try and deprive the citizens a vote n the rival proposal, you can’t but wonder who was in the room and why no-one spoke up, or at least no-one reminded the campaign that the citizens’ right to choose had been fundamental to their campaign less than a year before.

You can also only wonder what the other MLS expansion applicants who have done everything the right way, and seen the process delayed to accommodate San Diego (among other reasons) , make of it.

Lastly, it remains to be seen what the San Diego public will make of it on November 6, irrespective of the merits of the two proposals.