With its origins dating back to 1882, San Diego High School is a treasured community landmark and gathering place. One of California’s oldest public schools, its thousands of graduates have gone on to enrich San Diego in many ways. In off-school hours, the high school regularly hosts dozens of events each year.

But its 50-year lease of 34 acres in Balboa Park expires in 2024, when San Diego Unified is legally obligated to tear down the school because schools are not allowed on dedicated park land under City Charter section 55. Looking to end the uncertainty over San Diego High’s future, the City Council put Measure I on the Nov. 8 ballot. Voters will be asked to amend the charter to allow a school on the site, clearing the way for a new lease.

“Do we want to preserve San Diego High School as one of our greatest community assets or do we want to demolish it? That is the only question being asked,” school board Vice President Richard Barrera testified before the City Council in June.

If that was truly the only question being asked of voters, supporting Measure I would be a no-brainer. But it’s not. Here are two more: Why are city and school district leaders pursuing a legally dubious course of action that invites lawsuits? Why isn’t an obvious compromise being pursued?

San Diego voters can amend the City Charter but not the California Public Resources Code. Section 5401 (a) of that code says, “No city, city and county, county, public district, or agency of the state ... shall acquire (by purchase, exchange, condemnation, or otherwise) any real property, which property is in use as a public park at the time of such acquisition, for the purpose of utilizing such property for any nonpark purpose, unless the acquiring entity pays or transfers to the legislative body of the entity operating the park sufficient compensation or land, or both.” The city charging the district a token amount for rent — $200 a year under the current deal — for some of San Diego’s most valuable real estate isn’t remotely “sufficient compensation.”

Two of Measure I’s most prominent critics, David Lundin and Harold Valderhaug, also cite another California law which “prohibits any municipality from giving its assets to another public entity to perform a mission outside the scope of the city’s legal obligations.” San Diego “is not legally tasked with managing or supporting public education. That is the district’s duty,” they wrote in a recent Union-Tribune op-ed. “The city cannot lawfully give the district ... dedicated park lands to relieve the district of its duty to provide schools.”

Whether or not Measure I passes, it’s time for Mayor Kevin Faulconer, the City Council, San Diego Unified Superintendent Cindy Marten and the school board or their designees to cut a deal. Lundin and Valderhaug say the school district could swap land with the city, allowing for San Diego High’s continued operation. If this were done seriously, with negotiations not handled by city officials who tolerate giving away city assets, San Diego could get high-quality land for new or expanded parks.

‍

San Diegans need to demand this obvious solution. The best way to do so is by rejecting Measure I and the bad policy and bad faith it represents.