Coronado's Most Read Newspaper & Community Website

Understanding Proposition H - WE WANT YOUR COMMENTS

Update: Proposition H Fails

Reporting 10 of 10 at 100.0% counted:

NO 68.86 %

YES 31.14 %

Voting results: https://www.sdvote.org/PickRace.asp

eCoronado.com has been getting loads of emails, comments, calls and just plain outbursts about the upcoming Proposition H election scheduled for June 8th, 2010. So, let us know what you think about the upcoming election and if you feel comfortable, let us know how you plan on voting in the comments below.

The City Council of Coronado has placed an Advisory Ballot Measure (Proposition H) on the June 8 ballot for Coronado Voters, in conjunction with the Statewide Primary Election on the same date.

Proposition H asks:

Do you support the City continuing to use and seek federal, state, and local funding to complete the study of long-term traffic relief options, including a tunnel, between the Coronado Bridge and Naval Air Station North Island?

Proposition H is an advisory measure being presented by the Coronado City Council seeking a determination of whether (1) the community supports the use of existing federal, state and local funding to complete the ongoing study of long-term traffic relief options (the "Study"), including the option of a tunnel between the San Diego - Coronado bridge (the "Bridge") and Naval Air Station North Island ("NASNI"), and (2) whether the community supports continued efforts to obtain and use future new federal, state and local funding to implement the ultimate design and construction of improvements of long-term traffic relief options identified in the Study.

Overview

The City of Coronado has been evaluating possible alternatives that could address easing traffic on the bridge, in the community and coming to and from Naval Air Station North Island for the past 12 years.

The project report and environmental studies began in 2004 and currently are 90 percent complete for what is now known as the SR 75/282 Transportation Corridor project. The ballot measure is in regard to this project.

Argument In Favor Of Proposition H (PDF signed by the Mayor and 3 Council Members)

Argument Against Proposition H (PDF signed by 1 Council Member and 1 Citizen)

Rebuttal to Argument in Favor of Proposition H (PDF)

Rebuttal to Argument Against Proposition H (PDF)

City Attorney's Impartial Analysis (PDF)

Additional Proposition H Information

As an advisory measure the City is not bound by the results of the vote. Should the measure fail the City can still proceed to complete the Study, and can choose to pursue federal, state and local funding options for the implementation of traffic relief measures, including a tunnel between the Bridge and NASNI; conversely, should the measure be approved, the City can choose not to proceed with the completion of the Study, or could cease efforts to seek federal, state and local funds for the design and construction of improvements identified in the Study. As of March 2010, the City of Coronado has approximately $7.9 million to complete the project report and environmental study and the estimated costs to complete the study is approximately $2 million.

The material above is from the City of Coronado website. More information can be found here.

Please add your comments below.

Tags: city council, community, tunnel, vote

0 members like this

Comment by jef on June 2, 2010 at 8:07pm: FELLOW ISLANDERS!! Follow the links below. EDUCATE YOURSELF BEFORE JUNE 8TH!!

http://www.stoptunnelspending.com/6401.html

http://coronadocommonsense.typepad.com/coronado_common_sense/2009/0..., http://coronadocommonsense.typepad.com/coronado_common_sense/traffi..., http://coronadocommonsense.typepad.com/coronado_common_sense/2009/1..., http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/firmsum.php?lname=PMA+Group&ye..., http://legacy.signonsandiego.com/news/metro/images/20080611-expense..., http://sports.uniontrib.com/uniontrib/20080611/news_1m11tunnel.html, http://www.entrepreneur.com/tradejournals/article/173464182.html, http://www.coronado.ca.us/egov/docs/1207922704_731323.pdf, http://www.stoptunnelspending.com/6401.html, http://service.govdelivery.com/docs/CACORON/CACORON_1/CACORON_1_200..., http://www.citizensforethics.org/taxonomy/term/1525

Comment by Gail Parker on June 4, 2010 at 8:48am: Mayor Tanaka,
It would be in the best interest of our community for you to call an immediate press conference to explain the City Right of Way maps located in the Major Investment Study (MIS), Task 4.2 document (Conceptual Design for Alternate Strategies). Evidently they refer to the land the city can claim the right to in order to construct a tunnel.

The maps can be viewed on the coronadocommonsense.typepad.com website.

Before voting on Proposition H, citizens have a right to be absolutely clear as to how far our City Council is planning to go when they tell us that they will make a decision on the PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE based on the study. (refer to City of Coronado Understanding Proposition H voter pamphlet)

Please explain what funds can be spent and how they can be spent, what tolls can be implemented and spent, and most importantly how much financial obligation can legally be incurred by our City Council BEFORE the City asks property owners for a bond issue?

I admit that I am not sophisticated in these matters and need to hear absolute facts, and only facts, from our elected Mayor in hopes of dispelling my growing fears.

Thank you.

Comment by Bud Edney on June 4, 2010 at 1:15pm: Bud Edney Comment

It is extremely disappointing to me that Councilwoman Downey on her ecoronado blog”Can TDMs Solve Coronado Traffic Problems” has resorted to disapproving or blocking selected Vote No on Proposition H comments made.When she initially stated she is interested in open public discussion on the issues.
Some of the recent comments by Ms Downing are amazing for a representative of Coronado to make. She indicated that the Tunnel Study had to be completed in order to pursue a change in the Navy’s position stated in writing by Assistant Secretary Penn that a tunnel portal on NASNI property was unacceptable to the Navy. Ms Downing opined that she understands that the Navy/ military is mosly preoccupied with providing resources to those in harms way in Iraq and Afghanistan. She goes on to say that when the services come home from Afghanistan and Iraq, the City must be ready to pursue a change in the Navy’s position. This clearly indicates she does not understand the War on Terror by militants or in reality Radical Islam will go on. Therefore the Navy’s position that a tunnel portal on NASNI property is unacceptable due to counter-terrorism requirements.
Let me get this straight. We need to waste more money to finish the study so that we can waste even more on lobbyists trying to change the Navy's position and also get State and Federal support. the only way to stop this waste is vote No on Proposition H. Enough is Enough

Comment by Max H on June 4, 2010 at 5:40pm: I've seen their signs, their handouts, their online posts, their websites, and their letters in the paper. What I find extremely disappointing is that the stoptunnelspending team insists on using condescension, derision, mockery, accusations, and thinly veiled insults as their primary means to persuade the public. Admiral Edney made his position perfectly clear at the first debate, “Any community would be happy to have Coronado’s traffic problems.” Since that’s his belief, I can see why he wants to convince everyone to vote no, but I find his team’s methods of persuasion ugly, ugly, ugly. Enough _is_ Enough. I'm undecided on the tunnel, but I do think we have a traffic issue. Let's have civil discourse.

Comment by jef on June 4, 2010 at 10:54pm: It's going to cost over $650 million to build a tunnel on an island where 22,000 residents enjoy an average of $1.5 million home values. Look around California or just over the bridge on the mainland at the poverty of many fellow Californians. Do we REALLY think a tunnel is the best way to spend (probably over $1 billion) precious tax dollars in the middle of the worse recession in American history? When this issue gets on the statewide ballot as an initiative (and it will with the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association), voters will deny the funding PERIOD. There's $15 million and 12yrs up-in-smoke.

Perfectly clear? I believe the Admiral was referring to how lucky we are to live on Coronado, even if we have a traffic problem. I find stoptunnelspending to be very useful to get the information that is heavily veiled in "political-speak".from the City (ie. the City mailer on Prop H lacked info on the NO side of the issue). It is better to give specific examples of the behavior of stoptunnelspending that you find offensive. To judge their persuasion methods like you did above is to do just what you are accusing them of doing. In my opinion, this has been a good, informative, passionate and vigorous debate from BOTH sides on a VERY important issue confronting islanders.

Comment by jef on June 5, 2010 at 6:39am: EASY LINKS TO TUNNEL DISCUSSIONS ON EcORONADO:
http://www.ecoronado.com/profiles/blogs/save-our-streets-or-why-i
http://www.ecoronado.com/profiles/blogs/the-tunnel-project-educate
http://www.ecoronado.com/profiles/blogs/why-you-should-vote-no-on
http://www.ecoronado.com/profiles/blogs/can-tdm-solve-coronados
http://www.ecoronado.com/profiles/blogs/cost-of-coronado-tunnel-study
http://www.ecoronado.com/profiles/blog/list?q=TUNNEL

http://www.ecoronado.com/profiles/blogs/can-tdm-solve-coronados?id=...
Statements by Councilwoman Carrie Downey: "But I draw the line in other people using MY blog to try to confuse the voters. So because apparantly someone has complained to ecoronado.com about the having to wait to see their words posted on MY blog, I will be closing the blog to further posts."
"I have only deleted 2 that I believed would mislead MY Blog readers. I want only factual information to be put forth on MY blog."

"MY BLOG poster and readers"? Who is the judge in misleading statements or facts? I thought FACTS stood for themselves. An OPEN lively discussion is the place for thoughtful debate; not screening by a "self-imposed" moderator. I find it TROUBLING that a sitting Coronado City official has decided to limit discussion on an OPEN PUBLIC blog. What facts about this tunnel project have been "deleted" because it was an inconvenient fact for the pro-tunnelers? I've never been in a debate where the opposing party was able to preapprove/edit the statements from the other side. Which law school teaches that system?

Comment by Councilwoman Barbara Denny on June 5, 2010 at 8:03am: We are proud to announce the six groups who endorsed a NO vote on Proposition H on June 8:

1) San Diego Union-Tribune
2) San Diego Tea Party
3) San Diego Tax Fighters
4) Stop Taxing Us
5) San Diego & Imperial Counties Labor Council
6) San Diego Libertarian Party.

Comment by Councilwoman Barbara Denny on June 5, 2010 at 4:22pm: In answer to a question I am frequently asked, the tunnel study is NOT paid for and is NOT 90% done.

It is unfortunate that elected city officials and tunnel commissioners keep resurrecting these myths that confuse and mislead the voters.

In reality, per agenda item 13(b) on page 114 of the 6 April 2010 complete council agenda, city staff reported to city council that there is $7.9M more of OUR tax and toll dollars to waste on the tunnel study: (a) $6M of our bridge toll revenue from our bridge toll fund, (b) $1.4M of our federal taxes from the tunnel fund, and (c) $500,000 of our taxes directly from our city's general fund.

In a moment of truth, the current mayor admitted at the Cays tunnel debate that he can NOT guarantee that the study will "only" cost around $2M more as noted in the city-generated election materials, nor can he guarantee that the tunnel study will be ready for review by the public as "early" as 2012 as promised by the city.

The truth is that the zealous tunnel advocates, including the current mayor and three council members, can NOT guarantee the cost and time required to "finish the tunnel study."

All of the $7.9M of our tax and toll dollars most definitely and legally CAN and SHOULD be put toward higher and better uses -- not arbitrarily wasted on the tunnel study.

On another note, in reality the terrorist attack on the United States on 11 SEPTEMBER 2001 took the tunnel off the table and rendered a tunnel absolutely non-viable.

The Navy in Coronado, San Diego and Washington, DC communicated this undeniable fact to Coronado city starting in 2001 and continuing beyond in a consistent manner. For obvious reasons of security, the Navy cannot allow a tunnel to surface on North Island. And the Navy cannot and will not make its workers drive in a tunnel for the exclusive use of military employees because it is an obvious terrorist target.

Smart transportation policy requires that Coronado drop the tunnel project immediately and concentrate on AFFORDABLE AND REALISTIC TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT TOOLS:

(1) Park & Ride,
(2) Commuter Ferry,
(3) MTS-Navy Express Buses,
(4) Navy Van Pools,
(5) Slugging (Casual Carpooling) and
(6) Mass Transit.

These tools already exist in our transportation infrastructure so they do NOT require study like a tunnel which is major capital project. Also, they are NOT analyzed in any meaningful way in the tunnel study, nor will they ever be studied like the cut-and-cover tunnel models and the bored tunnel models which are the lion's share of the tunnel study.

These six realistic, affordable tools have the untapped potential to:

(a) significantly eliminate vehicle trips to our island,
(b) reduce our carbon footprint per the current federal law mandate, and
(c) reduce our dependence on foreign oil.

Also, these six tools are supported by government agency executives in our region. A tunnel is not supported, financially or otherwise.

Unfortunately, these six realistic and affordable traffic management tools were disparaged and actively undermined at every turn by a minority of zealous tunnel advocates whose agenda is to build a tunnel under Fourth Street in Coronado from the toll plaza toward NASNI.

The fact is that Coronado's zealous tunnel advocates ran the city's transportation policy into a ditch and your NO vote on Proposition H will make things right again.

It's time for realistic traffic management in Coronado.

Vote NO on Proposition H on June 8.

Comment by jef on June 6, 2010 at 4:56am: Do you want to cut our losses on a study that leads to building a $650 million tunnel OR do you want to continue a 1998 mindset that authorized projects like the Big Dig in Boston? Do you want a $650 million tunnel that doesn't REDUCE traffic and pollution (it just buries it) OR do you want to pursue actual solutions that will reduce traffic on Coronado? Do you want to waste more than $2 million on a tunnel that will NEVER be built OR do you want Coronado to commit that money to finding a REAL solution that actually REDUCES the number of vehicles and pollution? This will be a test of our city officials. If prop H is not passed, who will continue spending money on pursuing a tunnel project? This Prop H also gives political cover to pro-tunnelers so they can abandon a tunnel project that they have been authorizing money on all these years. A NO vote will allow them to abandon the tunnel and say it was the will of the island.

Vote NO on Prop H. Let's give the City Council a reason to abandon the tunnel plan and seek REAL SOLUTIONS to reducing traffic and pollution on Coronado.

Comment by Bruce Johnson on June 6, 2010 at 10:25am: Imagine Coronado without all the cars whizzing in a hurry down the main ( & other) streets. If all or most of the traffic going THRU Coronado could be rerouted (80+% of traffic) - around or under the island - what would the island be like? It would be paradise again like it was prior to 1969 when we had NO stop lights in town, it was much safer and crossing Orange Ave. was easy. I hope and pray that someday our Island can be restored. That is why I am voting yes on H.

Sadly I can also imagine what traffic will be like in the future if we do nothing. It is also that vision that prompts me to vote Yes on H.