Now that we’ve had some time to process the Port of San Diego’s closed-door decision terminating its lease with the current operator of the Coronado Ferry Landing, it’s clear one thing is still missing: answers.
It was a decision that sent confusion rippling through the community. With no guarantee of a lease extension to Port Coronado Associates, the company that has been operating the ferry landing for 40 years, stakeholders and observers alike have plenty of valid questions to volley to the port:
Why was this decision made in a closed meeting?
What does the port intend to do with the property by switching management in-house?
Will current small business owners within the ferry landing get extensions to their leases, or will the port shut them down and redevelop the area entirely?
With so many unanswered questions, this is fundamentally an issue of transparency. But zooming out, it also provides an opportunity to analyze the role of the port as it relates to managing San Diego’s waterfront – whether it should act as an oversight agency, or manage the day-to-day operations of properties.
Let’s look at the fine print, first examining why the agency was established in the first place.
The Port District was created in 1962 to manage 34 miles of San Diego Bay’s waterfront, with a total tideland count of over 14,000 acres. The tidelands were previously run by the port cities, but under the Port Act (enacted by the State of California and approved by voters), oversight was transferred to the Port District.
Now the port is responsible for implementing the Public Trust Doctrine, which protects the tidelands for the benefit of the California public. As such, the lands are held in trust by the state, but belong to the people. The port’s job is to oversee.
Typically, the district leases out its properties to private companies, which was the case for the Coronado Ferry Landing and Port Coronado Associates. But, there are a few instances where the port has decided to manage the land itself – B Street Pier is one example.
And now, the Ferry Landing may be added to the list of in-house management properties.
The danger of taking this in house is again, the lack of transparency and future oversight. Port leaders are saying they have no plan for the property at the moment. Really? It’s hard to believe the agency would take over operations without a vision for the property. But it would not be surprising if the port is being less-than-transparent and withholding information, considering one decision was already made behind closed doors without any input from the Coronado community.
Perhaps most importantly, if the port is responsible for operations, who holds the port responsible for upholding the Public Trust Doctrine? Right now, the port holds the leaseholders accountable, but if the port is essentially the lease holder, no governing authority is in a position to hold them accountable. In other words, who watches the watchmen?
And now as a ripple effect, small business owners leasing out space in the ferry landing are unsure of what the future holds. Their livelihoods could be jeopardized if the port decides to develop the property.
Really, the debate lies in questioning the healthiest version of the port. We’ve already seen one decision made behind closed doors. This move to take all management internally seems haphazard and prompts reasonable skepticism about the port’s motive and transparency moving forward.
We believe the best role for the Port District is one of oversight, not management, ensuring the leaseholders live up to the promise of the Public Trust Doctrine.
