Striking a Good Bargain

The term “statesmanship” is not often applied to the work of local government. But if the City of San Diego and the San Diego Unified School District are to judiciously solve a particularly vexing conflict that has arisen between them, a large dose of it is going to be needed on both sides.

The dispute stems from the school district’s desperate need for money to build new schools and to rehabilitate and expand older ones. Prevented by Proposition 13 from raising construction funds through general obligation bonds, the district is seeking to use property it feels it no longer needs to generate income to pay off bonds.

The problem with the city comes from the district’s desire to turn two closed school sites over to private developers who would build multifamily housing in what are now single-family neighborhoods. The city, using a provision it recently discovered in the state Education Code, wants to block the development and claim its right to buy at least part of the two sites for park space.

There are several ways this issue could be framed and as many ways that the battle lines could be drawn. In one sense it pits older areas, such as Point Loma and Pacific Beach where school population is falling, against newer areas, such as Mira Mesa and Scripps Ranch where it is rising. In another, it creates a conflict between the desirable goals of more park space and more schools.

The state law that governs the situation requires a school district to offer to sell for parkland--and at a bargain price--a portion of the property it considers surplus to its needs. Not surprisingly, lawyers for the city and district have opposing viewpoints as to whether the other side has fulfilled its various responsibilities under that law.

Listening to the merits of each side’s case, no right or wrong emerges. The school district and the city are simply trying to fulfill their obligations to their constituencies.

For now, the problem has been handed to a task force of school board and City Council members. It is to be hoped that the task force members will work amicably and rise above narrow perspectives and turf consciousness--in other words, to show statesmanship.

The city must recognize the school board’s absolute responsibility to provide schools. That’s as fundamental to the district’s mission as providing police and fire protection is to the city’s. Given the district’s limited financial resources, to deny it the right to use what assets it has would be a grave disservice.

For its part, the district must be sensitive to the council’s obligation to maintain the quality of life in the older neighborhoods. If school officials only look at the bottom line, they will incur justified wrath from those who feel injured by their actions. It is up to the school board to decide whether it’s wise to give up school sites in order to meet current needs. But the board may have to settle for less development on those sites than it might want in order to secure the city’s cooperation and to be a good neighbor.

The worst outcome would be a failure to reach a compromise and a lawsuit between the district and city.