Support
August 20, 2007 10:59 AM
Chula Vista
In response to emails requested by Kevin O'Neill, et. al.:
Now that the dear Gaylord Corp. from Nashville, Tennessee, etc., is threatening to turn down $300 million plus in taxpayer subsidies offered to private development of Chula Vista's bay front, perhaps now, we local taxpaying citizens can get back to our lives devoid of further developer/city council/port district shenanigans in favor of enriching this troika of bosses at the expense of super-exploited non-union labor and a despoiled bay front congested by hordes of polluting conventioneers lounging in the high rise lap of luxury---a giant sunset blocking building, monument to man's unending greed in pursuit of ever greater tax dollars and the profit god.
Perhaps now, our venal city leaders will pull in their fingers grasping for dollars and really engage the community with public meetings and focus-groups in a true grass roots attempt to develop the Chula Vista bay front. May I suggest a combination 2000 to 3000 private homes, including some for low income and seniors. This combined with 300 plus acres of open public space, a community facility designed to accommodate local celebrations, museums, including one dedicated to survival of the planet free from burning fossil fuels, botanical gardens, a research center to study ways to combat child obesity, all areas serviced by light rail, watercraft and other alternative means of transport in a carbon dioxide vehicle exhaust free zone. A major feature will be to get people out of their cars. Another feature would include building a freeway roof covering, undergrounding I-5 traffic from the Sweetwater River to Main Street with a landscaped covering of vegetation and hiking trails.
The major obstacle to creative development of the C.V.bay front is a lack of imagination brought to the planning/design table by city leaders tied to doing it the old back door deal way and with outside investors too ready to take the city for a ride down another avenue of broken dreams. Mayor Cox and your cohorts need to get real, show some initiative/leadership and stop sucking-up to whatever deep pocket developer
comes along, ready to scam the taxpaying public.
August 11, 2007 10:17 PM
Chula Vista
Regarding “Gaylord, port talks on hotel to restart” (Our Region, Aug. 8):
I am a Chula Vista native of more than 50 years. I have watched the bayfront project with interest, and I have gotten tired of the letters from outside the city (I mean, come on, Rancho Santa Fe!?) by people who only have business interests, and from people who claim to be part of the “broad community” that supports Gaylord Entertainment. Unions are part of the work environment because big business/bureaucracies are not benevolent. Anyone who thinks they are must live in Rancho Santa Fe.
The bayfront will happen, with or without Gaylord. Gaylord is not the only developer. Do people really think this is a one-sided discussion? Does the city think it needs to grovel to get a developer? Gaylord is not my champion; I'm for the workers who do quality work and have to fight for decent wages and benefits. Quite a few of them are city employees, teachers, nurses, and yes, construction workers.
July 19, 2007 10:16 PM
Business Manager
Plumbers & Pipefitters Local Union 230
Project labor agreements are being used successfully by cities, counties, school districts and private owners to build a variety of projects. A few examples are Ballpark Village, Petco Park, San Francisco Airport, AT&T Park, San Diego Emergency Water Storage Project, Escondido Palomar Energy Project, Otay Mesa Generating Station, Los Angeles School District. The Hoover Dam, Shasta Dam and even Disney World were built using PLAs.
PLAs are a product of collective bargaining and are negotiated to meet the needs of the individual project and owner. They are ideal for complex projects that have an extended construction schedule and involve multiple crafts and trades.
PLAs can make sure that the project is built by the community's workers through local hire agreements. Many PLAs are initiating community outreach efforts, enrolling minorities and women in pre-apprenticeship programs.
One door closes and another door opens. If not Gaylord, another developer will emerge to build on Chula Vista's bayfront.
July 12, 2007 10:11 PM
Chula Vista
In your coverage of the demise of our planned Chula Vista convention center, Mayor Cheryl Cox seems to be pointing blame at the unions.
Being a new resident of this city, it would seem that a project of this magnitude would be personally handled, negotiated, refereed by its mayor.
Mayor Cox has not demonstrated “commanding authority or influence” on such a major tax revenue project as this convention center. The mayor should learn the real meaning of the word “leader.”
July 12, 2007 10:10 PM
Retired IBEW Local 441 (Orange County)
Valley Center
Who do you want building your public infrastructure, including hospitals, stadiums and power plants? Skilled tradeswomen and tradesmen or somebody you found in the back pages of the Pennysaver? For my tax dollars, I would prefer skilled trades people who have a vested interest in the area where the work is being done, and whose wages will go to bolster the economy of that area instead of being hauled out of state when the work is completed.
July 12, 2007 10:08 PM
IBEW Local 569 President
Chula Vista
This is a a one-of-a-kind location. With the incentive of waterfront property and an additional $300 million public subsidy, this site deserves the right developer, not just the first one that comes along. As a western Chula Vista resident, I firmly believe our city deserves a developer that will make a legally binding commitment to hiring craftsmen and craftswomen from our community.
July 12, 2007 10:06 PM
Member, Chula Vista Resource Conservation Committee
Let's stop crying for Gaylord and use this opportunity to raise the bar on bayfront development. Chula Vista and the San Diego Unified Port District still have the most valuable real estate asset in the county, a huge bayfront property with water views, easily accessible by freeways and surface streets.
Gaylord stood to gain the most desirable undeveloped resort location in Southern California! It left the table – not because it was being forced to hire union workers, but because it refused to guarantee hiring local workers.
If Gaylord doesn't want to sign up for local hires, we don't want them and don't need them. The line of other interested parties is already formed and growing.
July 10, 2007 10:14 PM
Santee
The Union-Tribune editorial puts the blame once again squarely on the back of local labor unions. Never mind that Gaylord Entertainment was being wooed with $308 million of taxpayer-funded corporate welfare or that Building and Construction Trade Council conceded on most of the union concerns except the most important one, the hiring of local tradesman.
Importing an outside labor force translates to jobs paying lower wages and/or fewer benefits. Why else would Gaylord balk at this demand? Local tradesmen like all of us have the high cost of living in San Diego to contend with. Wouldn't we expect to receive the prevailing wage for work performed in the city where we pay taxes and raise our families?
It's time your editorial board sets aside its anti-labor bias; the newspaper's sole existence is due to the faithful readership and subsequent subscriptions of workers who benefit directly or indirectly from trade union membership.
July 10, 2007 10:13 PM
San Diego
Regarding “A region loses/Labor intransigence kills billion-dollar resort” (Editorial, July 7):
I am appalled at your constant editorial bashing of labor unions. Your editorial totally blames labor but never mentions the numerous concessions it was willing to allow. Tennessee is known as a labor-busting state, and I am glad this company pulled out. It takes two to negotiate. How do you expect the trickle down theory of Republican conservative economics to work if there is no counter balance to big business?
July 10, 2007 10:12 PM
Chula Vista
Gaylord needs to know that if it wants to pay a cheap living wage, then it may be more welcome in a Third World country, where the wage reflects the cost of living of that area. Gaylord and companies like it need to get with the program and pay labor a wage that reflects the cost of living in that area, or they will have labor problems wherever they go. Getting rich on the backs of labor is no longer a rich man's ride.
July 6, 2007 10:05 PM
San Diego
Regarding “Deadlock over resort spurs rally by officials” (Our Region, July 4):
It was entertaining but disgusting to see a cohort of mayors and other public trough officials condemning labor unions for fighting for decent wages and working conditions for the people who would build the bayfront resort complex in Chula Vista. Chula Vista firefighter representative Steve Miller had the gall to yell invectives at an International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers representative for attempting to get a fair deal from Gaylord, a notoriously anti-union corporation. Miller describes himself as a “union leader” but he's really just another Chula Vista city employee – just like Mayor Cheryl Cox.
If Gaylord backs out of the deal, so what? Gaylord was getting a sweetheart of a deal from Chula Vista. If Gaylord wasn't satisfied with the millions of dollars in profit it stood to make from the development, even with union workers, then good riddance, we don't need anymore union busting in San Diego. Our unions are the only force striving to maintain a decent standard of living for working people.
