Have you been wondering what all the fuss is about the Santa Ana PBID? Well, wonder no more. I got a hold of all the city documents related to the PBID, and you can view them by clicking here. This link will take you to a Google Documents folder with numerous documents related to the PBID, including:
- The original PBID map
- The public hearing notice
- The order establishing the PBID
- And various documents regarding modifications of the PBID
So what is the PBID? It is a property assessment, which is to say a tax, on businesses and property owners in much of Downtown Santa Ana. Recently the Santa Ana City Council redrew the PBID’s boundaries, making it smaller, in order to get rid of some of the businesses that were complaining about the PBID.
The PBID funds are administered by Downtown, Inc., an organization that is run by a Board that holds officer elections in March. Click here to read their latest meeting agenda. Click here to see their latest meeting minutes. Click here to see their 2010 Annual Report. And click here to see their latest newsletter. Click here to see their Financial Review.
Irv Chase recently resigned from Downtown, Inc.’s board. Who else is on their board? That is hard to say. I could not find a current list of their Board Members, but here is what I found in their last annual report, relative to their board and staff:
Board Directors, 2009/10 Officers
Term Expiration:
- President: Bob Stewart, Empire Building (2010/11) 4/30/12
- Vice Chair: Ryan Chase, Fiesta Marketplace #2 (2010/11) 4/30/12
- Treasurer: Ray Rangel, R & R Sportswear (2009/10) 4/30/10
- Gil Marrero, Harrah Properties (2010/11) 4/30/11
- Secretary: Wendy Bryan, Gonzalez Northgate Markets (2009/10) 4/30/10
- Irv Chase, Fiesta Marketplace #1 (2010/11) 4/30/13
Property Owners – Directors
- Joe Duffy, Phillips Hutton Building 4/30/11
- Jon Gothold, DGWB Ventures 4/30/11
- Davin Gumm, Pacific Building 4/30/13
- Adolfo Lopez, Lopez Properties 4/30/12
- Elise Luckham, First American Title 4/30/12
- Michael Paxton, Spurgeon Building 4/30/13
- Alicia Valdez, Gonzales Northgate Markets 4/30/13
- Raul Yanez, Yanez Properties 4/30/11
Neighborhood Representative Property Owner
- Brian Christenson, Artist Village Lofts 4/30/11
Merchant Representative Business Owner
- Teresa Saldivar, Teresa’s Jewelry 4/30/11
City of Santa Ana Representatives
- Cindy Nelson, Deputy City Manager Standing City of Santa Ana
Staff
- Vicky Baxter, Executive Director
- Liset Hernandez, Business Manager
- Ruth Valle, Member Services/Outreach
- Norm Baxter, Consultant
- Phung Mai, Administrative Assistant
- Kathryn Podsiadlo, Special Projects Intern
- Andrew Tovstein, Retail Recruitment Intern
- Claudia Lavini, Special Projects Intern
- Joshua Lee, Research Intern
Note that Cindy Nelson is also off their board now, as she retired. She was the one who came up with the PBID idea, along with now retired Santa Ana City Manager Dave Ream. Together they cooked up a scheme that allowed the PBID vote to be somewhat rigged as the City of Santa Ana had a bunch of votes, due to the fact that they own a lot of land in the Downtown area. The PBID passed essentially with less than a majority vote – and today a lot of folks say they didn’t even have a chance to vote.
I am hearing that some of the folks who are upset about the PBID are going to sue the City of Santa Ana. They are going to demand that the PBID be cancelled. I am told that they are open to having a new PBID election – and it would likely fail without the scheming duo of Ream and Nelson.
Has the PBID been effective? In many ways, yes. Downtown Santa Ana is clean and safe and there has been of marketing. However critics say that the marketing has only benefited a few – primarily the bars and restaurants.
I am a fan of Downtown Inc.’s Executive Director, Vicky Baxter. She has worked very hard and done the best job possible under trying circumstances. That said, the problem with PBID is how it was put together by Ream and Nelson. What they did was unjust and quite possibly illegal. Until this is dealt with the PBID will remain a sore spot and there will not be peace in Downtown Santa Ana.
Personally I believe a new PBID election is warranted. That is the only way to resolve the issue. The longer the Santa Ana City Council sits on their hands the worse the situation will become.
I also think that while the Downtown Inc. promoter, Archer Altstaetter, has been effective in marketing both Downtown Santa Ana and the new East End Promenade, he has also ventured into politics – in particular he has declared war on Santa Ana Mayor Pro Tem Claudia Alvarez. That was very ill-advised. Downtown, Inc. should have remained above the fray. Now they have pissed off Alvarez and her allies. That won’t end well, I can assure you.
There has in fact been talk among the Archer contingent of launching a recall against Alvarez. Good luck with that. If they do that I am quite sure that the Santa Ana City Council will summarily cancel the PBID.
One more thing – the artists in the Santa Ana Artists Village are not happy about the move by Archer to extend the monthly Art Walk to the East End Promenade. I went to the last Art Walk and saw for myself that extending the Art Walk both East and West has in fact diluted the crowds at the Santora Building. This extension is going to prove costly for the artists.
UPDATE: According to comments left on this blog by past mayoral candidate Stanley Fiala and Art Lomeli, a dentist who also owns property in Downtown Santa Ana, many of the property owners are collecting signatures and tabulating the amounts of assessments of anti-PBID owners. When they get to 50% they will be able to go to the City Council and demand that the PBID be canceled.
So it appears that you need signatures of owners who jointly pay 50%+ of the PBID assessments.
1) How much are the total assessments?
2) Can you get 50%+ such number?
I think it will be hard to do so as long as the City of Santa Ana counts as a property owner.
See http://www.newcityamerica.com/pbid.asp
How long can the district last once established?
In State of California, the PBID Legislation allows for a maximum life of 5 years. Upon renewal, a district may be established for a maximum of 10 years. The district can be formed for any amount of time, not to exceed the maximum term. Once the district is completed, the provisions for establishment are repeated in order to continue to fund special benefit services.
How could a district be disestablished if it is not functioning as envisioned?
Legislation provides for the disestablishment of the PBID pursuant to an annual review process. Each year that the district is in existence, there will be a 30-day period during which the property owners will have the opportunity to request disestablishment of the district. Within that 30 day period, if the owners of real property who pay 50% or more of the assessments levied submit a written petition, the PBID district disestablishment procedure may be initiated. The local governing body will hold a public hearing on disestablishing the PBID prior to actually doing so.
Clearly Stanley the PBID is the Achilles heel of the City Council. It is worth noting that ding dong Al Amezcua showed up at the last Council Meeting – after riling up his few supporters. But Al did not speak. And his supporters had a mixed message. They bashed the only Council Member who is against the PBID, Claudia Alvarez. Al could have ridden this issue to the Mayor’s office but instead he has now alienated the anti PBID faction. Ding dong!
“I think it will be hard to do so as long as the City of Santa Ana counts as a property owner.”…. Hmmmm
FAQ 1: How much of assessments they pay?
FAQ 2: Can City be property owner in PBID?
FAQ 3: Santa Ana is charter city, was the charter amended? or
FAQ 4 Does charter permitting such ownership presentation in PBID.
I bet there is a flow somewhere as always and only legal research can show.
Admin says:
September 10, 2011 at 1:08 pm
I think it will be hard to do so as long as the City of Santa Ana counts as a property owner.
The redistricting if valid has excluded the City properties from the argument.
Wow! That could be a game changer.
Admin, this was a fantastic post by you. It was completely fair in it’s approach. I have friends that work for or volunteer for Downtown Inc. I would hope that the whole group involved over there would understand that most S.A. Artists (if I may speak for some of them) are completely thrilled at the idea of more publicity for Downtown. However, if the PBID was established in an unfair way and if it appears to be structurally unjust then it must be criticized and further dealt with.
“Injustice anywhere in Santa Ana is a threat to justice everywhere in Santa Ana.”
Also, many artists are convinced that if the artists did not ride and critique Downtown Inc. The art scene would have been completely co-opted by bigger moneyed interests and placed somewhere else at the whim of some property owner/ speculating capitalists that care absolutely nothing about Santa Ana Art.
Thank You Admin. For seeing some light.
Gracias Mateo. Perhaps your friends judged me too quickly.
So it appears that it should be no problem to disestablish PBID.
1) Some committee should be establish to manage and direct PBID disestablishment.
2) Business plan should be prepared to show busies based advantages and disadvantages if PBID is disestablished.
3) No gentrification should be mentioned anywhere.
4) The 50%+ votes by weight should be identified
5) Identify 30 day annual period at which petition can be submitted.
6) And do it.
I may help if necessary.
Stanley said:
“I may help if necessary.”
Thank you Stan,we need all the help we can get. We actually are doing and woking on some of the the items you outlined.
This is a concern for all communities because mateo presented the issue beutifully.
“Injustice anywhere in Santa Ana is a threat to justice everywhere in Santa Ana.”
Mateo said:
I have friends that work for or volunteer for Downtown Inc. I would hope that the whole group involved over there would understand that most S.A. Artists (if I may speak for some of them) are completely thrilled at the idea of more publicity for Downtown. However, if the PBID was established in an unfair way and if it appears to be structurally unjust then it must be criticized and further dealt with.”
Along with this please mention to your friends working with Downtown Inc the unconstitutional bylaws this board has approved in order to, in a dictatorship manner, control the tax, property owners are subjected to.
The initial Board was selected by city staff and approved by council. The Downtown Inc Board votes in board members that spend the PBID tax. The bylaws exclude the property owners which pay the tax from voting unless we property owners pay an additional fee, summit an application for special membership, get selected by the siting Board (with an Agenda)……… at which time we can vote for other Board members.
So this results in the Board selecting the Board by excluding the PBID membership(property owners ) that fund the PBID that they manage.
This is “TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION”
Mateo,
Please advice your friends working with Downtown Inc. not to support this injustice. All those that care about Democracy and defend the USA Constitution should protest Downtown Inc. for adopting this injustice and question what agenda drove them to adopt a dictatorship approach at management.
THE MAJORITY PROPERTY OWNERS CALLING FOR PBID DISSOLUTION WILL BE AT DOWNTOWN’S MEETING THIS THURSDAY PROTESTING THEIR DICTAORSHIP MANNER OF MANAGEMENT…….”TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION”.
I ENVITE ALL THOSE IN SUPPORT OF US TO JOIN US.
“Injustice anywhere in Santa Ana is a threat to justice everywhere in Santa Ana.”…… Hmmmm
Empirically based, if you will use the above language you will get nowhere.
If you want succeed it must be strictly business based.
Injustice/ Justice are bad words to use.
This is not about social justice, this should be about the business.
Fighting injustice is everybody’s business Stanley.
GENERAL QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS REGARDING THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA PROPERTY BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT LEGISLATION
Prepared by Marco Li Mandri, New City America, Inc.
The California Property Business Improvement District Legislation that was adopted in 1994, and has been amended twice since its passage, is part of the California Streets and Highway Code, Section 36600.
Since its adoption, PBIDs have been embraced as critical tools to expedite revitalization of commercial areas and have been successfully adopted throughout the State of California. This paper represents a brief outline on what services can be funded by, the formation process and limits to the State of California PBID law.
The following represents general questions and answers that potential applicant groups may have regarding the formation or renewal of a Property Business Improvement District, (PBID), in the City of State of California…..
What is a State of California Property Business Improvement District?
In brief, the PBID is the state enabling legislation that allows for the creation of a special benefits district. Special benefit districts are defined in Article XIII (d) of the state constitution and are considered to be “property assessment districts”. The district functions to create a stable revenue source to fund special benefits, managed by a non-profit corporation of stakeholders, consistent with a “Management District Plan”, that is required by the legislation. Once there is a successful weighted supportive vote of the benefiting property owners during a public hearing process, the balloting is followed by the adoption of an ordinance by the local government. The ordinance provides for the annual levy of assessments on parcels, to fund the special benefits desired by benefiting property owners.
In order to establish the district, the local entity (City Council, Board of Supervisors), must hold a public hearing and distribute mail ballots in order to gauge the level of support of the weighted property owners in the district. Article XIII, Section D of the California State Constitution, governs the procedures for public hearing notification.
Similar districts are sometimes called Business Improvement Districts, Maintenance Districts, Community Benefit District, or Special Assessment Districts. In State of California, the PBID can be enacted in any city, whether general law or charter. However many cities, including San Diego, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Oakland, Berkeley and Alameda, have adopted their own enabling legislation based upon their Charter City powers.
The concept is to coordinate district responses to problems in the public rights of way, managed by a community based non-profit management corporation that is funded by the assessment district revenues.
Why would anyone want to pay more money, isn’t the City supposed to be providing these services?
Cities in the U.S. tax their citizens through a number of means, (property taxes, sales taxes, hotel taxes, enterprise taxes, special revenues), and allocate them to deliver general benefit services. These services are evolving historically but normally include police, fire, transportation, sewer, water, planning and zoning, streets, lighting, social and cultural affairs, environmental issues, trash and refuse, housing, etc. These services do not and cannot respond to the special needs of a given Downtown or business district.
To respond to those special needs, including sidewalk sweeping, steam cleaning, rapid removal of bulky items and graffiti, responding to illegal encampments, additional security, installation of order, states and localities have adopted special enabling legislation which allows motivated property owners to pay assessments to fund special benefit services. These special benefit assessments are probably the most efficient and effective funds to be paid since they must stay in the district, by law, and are managed by a locally based non-profit corporation made up of those being assessed.
At a time of huge local, state and national budget deficits, it is expected that general services will, in fact, be reduced. These assessments can provide the services each and every business district and Downtown stakeholder wants, but will not be funded by the City.
At a time of huge local, state and national budget deficits, it is expected that general services will, in fact, be reduced. These assessments can provide the services each and every business district and Downtown stakeholder wants, but will not be funded by the City.
What “special benefits” can the district fund?
The special services to be funded are spelled out in the enabling Legislation. They can only legally include those services over and above what a City will normally provide through the general fund. Such special benefit services may include:
Cleaning of the public rights of way, sidewalks and gutter (general vs. special benefit);
Steam cleaning of the sidewalks of the district;
Removal of trash and bulky material;
Security services over and above the services of the local police force;
Parking services or transportation related services;
Economic development;
Special lighting;
Business attraction and retention and structuring a proper commercial mix;
Planning, zoning and land use issues;
Graffiti removal;
Advocacy;
Administration and advocacy on behalf of business districts or neighborhoods
Beautification and decorations;
Tree maintenance, planting, watering, etc;
Marketing and promotion (in business districts only);
Special community or neighborhood fairs, festivals or events;
Can the City replace its general benefit services in that district once the special benefits district is formed?
By law, (Article XIII(d) of the state constitution), property assessment districts can only fund special, not general benefits. General benefits are those allocated to all parcels in the City and funded out of public or general fund revenues. Cities throughout the state normally adopt “baseline services agreements”, that require the City not to withdraw services once the special benefits district has been formed.
Experience has shown that once the assessment district has been formed, the private property owners in the district can normally leverage a greater amount of general benefit City services than before the establishment of the district. This is due to the fact that those property owners are now organized and can request things such as trees and the PBID assessment revenues can maintain additional trash cans, with the understanding that these capital improvements are funded by the City.
What allows the district to be formed and how is it done?
The district is normally initiated by a group of motivated property owners within a given community or district. Experience tells us that a core of property owners representing at least 10 – 15% of the potential assessment weight of the district, is necessary to initiate the investigation. This group will then approach the relevant City department or office to get information related to formation and the function of the special benefit services district or PBID.
A PBID Steering Committee will be formed among various interested parties, including the “weighted property owners” of the potential district. The PBID Steering Committee will meet and determine initial study boundaries and then conduct a study analyzing the level of support for formation of a PBID/Special Benefits district in the target area.
Experience has demonstrated that if at least 20 – 25% of the weighted property owners express support for the concept of the PBID, the Steering Committee will then enter into the formation stage of the PBID. The formation stage includes the following:
The Steering Committee is expanded to include all interested parties, with particular emphasis on the supportive, weighted property owners. State law mandates that property assessment districts can only be formed by an assessment ballot proceeding supported by the majority of weighted property owners within a given district. The weight of a property owner is not determined by the assessed valuation of the property, but rather by the amount that property owner will contribute to the overall budget of the district. There are times when a few major property owners represent a significant amount of weight in the district. Early knowledge of their support or opposition to the district’s formation is critical in the successful formation of the district.
The Steering Committee endorses a PBID Management District Plan for the area. The plan outlines the special benefit services to be funded, the term of the district, the boundaries, the assessment methodology which identifies for formula for determining the costs to each property owner, benefit zones if any, special provisions for discounted assessments, as well as the management structure of the district;
Once the PBID Management District Plan has been approved by consensus of the Steering Committee, a petition is circulated which demonstrates support of a minimum of 50% of the property owners, by weight. For example, if the annual first year budget is $150,000 for a PBID, petitions endorsing the PBID must be signed by $75,000 worth of assessments in the proposed district. Once the 50% weighted threshold has been reach, the petitions are then submitted to the appropriate City Department for processing.
The appropriate City office will then docket a “Resolution of Intent” for consideration by the local governing body. According to the State Constitution, property owners must be allowed to vote on the formation of the district through an “assessment ballot proceeding”/public hearing process. By adopting the Resolution, the Board is instructing the City or County to mail out the ballots to every affected property owner. The property owners have between 45-60 days in which to return the mail ballots. The mail ballots must be returned by the conclusion of the public hearing;
At the conclusion of public testimony at the public hearing, the Elections Department will then count the returned ballots and separate those in support and those in opposition. If the weighted returned ballots in support exceed those returned in opposition, the local governing body can then adopt an ordinance that levies the assessments on the benefiting parcels. The City then informs the County to levy the assessments on the parcels, as per the Management District plan, for the upcoming cycle of property tax bills.
The assessments will appear as a line item on the County property tax bills and will be separated and sent to City for processing. Once an account has been established and a contract is in place with the designated or new non-profit management corporation, the PBID assessments will be transferred from the City to the non-profit organization for management of the delivery of special benefit services to the PBID.
How long does this process take?
The process can take as little as 6 months or as long as 2 – 3 years. What is most important is that the affected community understands the proposal and the boundaries are set around a weighted majority who desire the services to be funded by the district.
Can the district be formed any time during the year?
Yes, however it is best to coordinate the formation process so the public hearing is completed by the end of July each year. This is suggested so there is not such a long delay in approving the district and receiving the revenues from the first property tax bills in December. The sponsoring organization may also work with the local governing body to allow the new PBID Management Corporation, even though the PBID is formed out of cycle, to approach a local financial institution to provide for a line of credit. This line of credit, secured by the PBID assessments, will allow the district to begin services prior to the tax collection cycle.
How are the PBID assessments collected?
As provided by the Legislation, the PBID assessments will appear as a separate line item on the annual property tax bills prepared by the County. Most property tax bills are distributed in the Fall and payment is expected by lump sum or in two installments. The County normally distributes the assessments collected from the PBID, to the City who will in turn then forward them to the designated Management Corporation, pursuant to the authorization of the plan. Existing laws for enforcement and appeal of property taxes apply to the PBID assessments.
Is there a minimum amount that should be generated by the district?
Though there is no legal requirement for assessment revenue generation, practice tells us that a minimum of $150,000 in a business district and $75,000 in a neighborhood should be generated in order to make an impact. The idea of the district is to have the special services make an impact on the problems that the district may face. It is important that the district has adequate revenues to fund the special benefit services that gave rise to the concept of an enhanced services district in the first place.
Once established, must every parcel in the district pay?
Unless specifically mentioned in the plan, every single parcel owner must pay into the district. This includes local, county, state and federal properties. In addition, parcels owned by tax-exempt designated organizations may be exempt from paying property taxes but will not necessarily be exempted from the assessment district. The only way to be exempted is to demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence, that no benefit will be received from the special benefit services funded by the district. The City, as a property owner, may sign petitions, vote in favor and pay into the respective PBID.
How long can the district last once established?
In State of California, the PBID Legislation allows for a maximum life of 5 years. Upon renewal, a district may be established for a maximum of 10 years. The district can be formed for any amount of time, not to exceed the maximum term. Once the district is completed, the provisions for establishment are repeated in order to continue to fund special benefit services.
How could a district be disestablished if it is not functioning as envisioned?
Legislation provides for the disestablishment of the PBID pursuant to an annual review process. Each year that the district is in existence, there will be a 30-day period during which the property owners will have the opportunity to request disestablishment of the district. Within that 30 day period, if the owners of real property who pay 50% or more of the assessments levied submit a written petition, the PBID district disestablishment procedure may be initiated. The local governing body will hold a public hearing on disestablishing the PBID prior to actually doing so.
If there is debt against the district, the district cannot be disestablished. However, due to the short term nature of PBID, they rarely if ever incur long term debts or obligations.
Who controls the funds once the district is established?
A non-profit corporation or “owners association” is usually designated or established once the district has been created. The non-profit corporation Board majority is normally comprised of the property owners paying into the district. The corporation could be an existing corporation, but usually a new one is formed based upon the boundaries of the new district. It could be a mutual benefit or public benefit corporation.
The non-profit PBID management corporation would then enter into a contract with the City, office, to administer the district on behalf of the stakeholders. Bylaws are normally written to ensure that the property owners can be freely nominated and/or elected to the Board. By law, the assessments generated within the district must be allocated to fund special services within the district. The City cannot offload its current baseline level of services with the assessments since the district can only fund “special benefits”.
Once established, can the City increase the assessments?
By law, the only increases in the annual assessment methodology must be pre-determined and placed in the PBID Management District Plan for the district. The City cannot arbitrarily increase the assessments because these are not funds created by or controlled by the City. The assessment may be increased only through a pre-designated CPI factor, or changes in land use such as parking lots being converted to commercial buildings or condos.
How many districts similar to the PBID exist in the Bay Area and State?
Business community assessment districts in which additional fees tied to business licenses have been around for the last 35 years in the state. Property based districts are relatively new to the state, with statewide legislation adopted in 1994 enabling their establishment.
It is estimated that over 2,000 property based districts are functioning in the US and Canada. In the state of California, over 400 business licensed based and property assessment districts in business districts are functioning. Examples of cities that have multiple districts include:
Los Angeles: 33 districts with 4 more in some stage of formation
San Diego: 6 newer property-based districts, 18 merchant based BIDs;
Oakland: 6 districts, with 2 more under formation
Berkeley: 3 districts
New York City: 55 districts
San Francisco: As of August 2005, 4 “Community Benefit Districts” and 2 PBIDs have been approved by their respective property owners groups. Currently 5 more districts are under investigation with 2 in formation stages.
This is clearly the national trend. These districts are providing the revenues to fill the gaps left by inadequate or un-funded Downtown/business district services.
Districts that have been recently formed by New City America in the City of State of California include:
Fisherman’s Wharf/San Francisco (July 2005)
Noe Valley – 24th Street/San Francisco (August 2005)
North of Market – /Tenderloin/San Francisco (August 2005)
Castro – Upper Market/San Francisco (August 2005)
Laurel District/Oakland, (July 2005)
Districts that are under investigation and/or formation stage by New City America include:
Fillmore Jazz District/San Francisco
Japan Town/San Francisco
Market Street/San Francisco
Portside – Fisherman’s Wharf/San /Francisco
Koreatown/Oakland
East Liberty, Pittsburgh Pennsylvania
Downtown Santa Ana
Downtown El Cajon
Written by:
Marco Li Mandri, President
New City America, Inc.
2130 Columbia Street
San Diego, CA 92101
(888) 356-2726
FAX: (619) 239-7105
http://www.newxcityamerica.com
Updated January 28, 2006
| HOME | NCA BLOG | WHAT’S NEW | TOURISM IMPROVEMENT DISTRICTS |
| CLIENT SATISFACTION | COMPANY VISION | FAQs | RESUME |
| LIST OF SERVICES | LITTLE ITALYS OF NORTH AMERICA | NCA DESIGN DEPARTMENT |
| BIOGRAPHY | PUBLIC SPACES | ARTICLES | TV COVERAGE | NCA REPORTS | DISTRICTS FORMED |
| WHAT IS A CBD? | WHAT IS A PBID? | LINKS | CONTACT US |
Stanley Fiala says:
September 10, 2011 at 3:55 pm
“Injustice anywhere in Santa Ana is a threat to justice everywhere in Santa Ana.”…… Hmmmm
Empirically based, if you will use the above language you will get nowhere.
If you want succeed it must be strictly business based.
Injustice/ Justice are bad words to use.
This is not about social justice, this should be about the business.
THE POINT IS THAT IF ONE LETS WHATEVER YOU WANT TO CALL THIS PBID ARGUMENT IN DOWNTOWN ……SOMETHING SIMILAR OR IDENTICAL CAN OCCUR ANYWHERE ELSE LOCAL OR OUTSIDE THE CITY.
“Fighting injustice is everybody’s business Stanley.”….. Hmmmm
This is not time and place do that.
We each follow our own muses.
“We each follow our own muses”….. Hmmmm
Some of us will fail and some of us will prosper.
However, I know who will do what.
So obviously I cant help.
You have already helped. Gracias Stanley.
One correction, Admin:
Unfortunately for those against the PBID, the city of Santa Ana wrote its own PBID law and took out the clause allowing property owners to petition to disestablish the district.
This is something I wrote about in February:
http://www.voiceofoc.org/oc_central/article_d9dc1e16-3648-11e0-85ad-001cc4c03286.html
The state law regarding the PBID is irrelevant in Santa Ana’s case. So much of Marco Li Mandri’s FAQ about the PBID doesn’t apply to Santa Ana. You have to look at the city’s municipal code here:
http://library.municode.com/index.aspx?clientID=14452&stateID=5&statename=California
Also, one other thing. It’s unlikely that Nelson and Ream wrote the city’s PBID law, as they know very little about such districts.
Here’s a little hint about who actually did write it: There are only a handful of consultants in the state that specialize in PBIDS, and, although Li Mandri was brought in to do a feasibility study early on, the city did not use New City America to assemble the district.
That’s also something I wrote about here: http://www.voiceofoc.org/oc_central/article_88f4a9e4-434c-11e0-9585-001cc4c03286.html
Good luck!
Gracias Adam. This will be a good fight!
It is funny how out sidede intrest continue to drill pipelines off the artist village for theyre own benifiet and not give credit where credit is due can you say “BITE ‘RS” phuckin shylocks great article Art
Adam
The city argues that theirs is a version of the State PBID. They name it Community Management district. That santa Ana is a charter city so they do not need to follow PBID State Law formation protocol.
They have done so to the letter except the 50% majority rule democratic process and constitutional right of the property aowners to have the democratic majority rule. And the democratic constitutional right to petition to dissolved a conested tax.
I DO NOT BELEIVE A CHARTER CITY IS EXCEMPT FROM THE USA CONSTITUTION AND THE DEMOCRATIC PROCESS.
Cties can make laws that are unconstitutional. Having a law does not mean much, only if not challenged.
Your story on this is just reporting what the city told you. Nothing investigative.
Adam said:
“The state law regarding the PBID is irrelevant in Santa Ana’s case. So much of Marco Li Mandri’s FAQ about the PBID doesn’t apply to Santa Ana. You have to look at the city’s municipal code”
In your interview with Mandri, you wrote:
“Mandri,after studying how the district was established, said he agrees with the disgruntled property owners.”
No one said Ream and Nelson wrote the Community management District(CMD). They directed the formation and text.
Who was responsible for creating the PBID
A YES Councilmember’s
Alvarez Benavides Martinez Tinaiero
Well what do you know, the mayor pro tem was in charge of the vote and the final vote needed to pass. She created the Frankston monster known as PBID.
Thanks Art P for posting the documents.
And God created the world but he still found it necessary to flood it a few years later. Credit Alvarez for coming around.
“And God created the world but he still found it necessary to flood it a few years later”… Hmmmmm
It was not the God!
It was global warming as result of greenhouse gasses and CO2 produced by a large quantity of sheep expelling intestinal gas through the anus including fermentation of vine and cheese.
The history repeat itself.
Great reading this Sunday morning. I have a greater understanding of the issue. I see the pros and cons of the Community Management District. I agree that there needs to be some adjustments to the organization, ie, how to become a member of Downtown. Inc board. Its obvious the city would like to see the rebirth of downtown while the mom and pop merchants would like to see the area remain the same. Change doesn’t come easily to many people but, as many counsel members pointed out during the special counsel meeting, the ball is rolling and the change is going to come. The change is in the best interest for ALL of Santa Ana.
Sounds like big trouble in little clowncil rat nest hah!
Art:
Your post obfuscates the facts.
Your contention that less than 50 percent of the total vote was for the PBID is false.
As I’ve reported before, it was a one-dollar one-vote tallying method. Of those that voted, 61 percent of the total votes were FOR the PBID.
The biggest problem with the vote was that only 23 percent of the property owners even voted. There was little outreach to the property owners, and a handful of large property owners (including the city) managed to dominate the vote.
If you look at the history of my reporting, I’ve showed how the vote took place, how many property owners voted, the level of outreach to the property owners, how the district was crafted, etc. etc. All facts that I’ve dug up through reviewing the law and extensive public records, as well as interviews with those like Marco Li Mandri.
All you have to do is read the many stories I’ve written on this issue since the beginning of the year.
If you’re serious about this issue, make sure you have the facts straight first.
Best of luck.
It sounds like we are arguing about semantics. That only 23 percent of the property owners voted is fairly damning. If true that means that far less than fifty percent of the total voters voted, which is what I meant to say.
In my time in this city I have seen this happen many times. The Ream administration was TERRIBLE at outreach and that was by design. This is how they got what they wanted. Go back and look at what happened when they put the Ream Assessment on the ballot. We defeated it handily.
Had Ream properly publicized the PBID vote he knew full well it would have lost. So he resorted to his usual bag of tricks…
Clarification: previous comment was meant for Art Lomeli, not Pedroza..
LOL! Too many Arts. You have done good work Adam on the PBID issue. This will be a tough battle but it is one worth fighting. I will do what I can to help Lomeli and his fellow property owners.
Be careful what you wish for Admin. No matter which direction you go.
You’re right Mateo. Santa Ana is a political minefield…
Thanks Admin.
Art Lomeli: Where in the U.S. Constitution is there a citizens’ petition right to end taxation?
There are very few constitutional provisions that deal directly with taxes. The big provision being that Congress can levy taxes as it pleases.
You’re right that the U.S. Constitution mandates any sort of referendum to be a 50 percent (plus one) popular vote.
Whether that popular vote provision can be interpreted as a one dollar one vote method in the case of the PBID is unclear. It’s gone unchallenged with hundreds of PBIDS across the country. And there is no case law that I know of that would set precedent.
The only way to figure that out is to challenge the PBID in court.
Yes, this will have to go to court. I am told that Ralph Allen is considering exactly that option. He has the resources to pursue a legal recourse.
Too bad, the property owners will need to spend the money to go to court to either win or lose.
Vote
And they could have stopped this in its tracks if they had bothered to vote.
Vote
May be those property owners thought that term limits would take care of it and there was no reason to vote.
Vote
There is a recent election that the supreme court tossed out and order a new election.
Vote
According to the election code, only the voters who voted in the original election can vote in the replacement election.
Vote
Fly in the ointment, . Has removed 3000 blacks . (I think 1200 of them voted in the contested election. And the vote spread between the two candidates in the count and 3 recounts was as low a 7 to a high of 300.
Vote
I bet this goes to the US supreme court.
Vote
What the PBID property owners need to do is the get a court order suspending the tax on all the property owners who can prove they voted NO. (its not a secret vote) The ones who voted YES and the non=voters would continue to pay.
Are you going to remember to VOTE.
“Are you going to remember to VOTE”….. when?
“Yes, this will have to go to court”….. Hmmmm
Not if you scare the living daylights out of them.
However, you will not accomplish that by talking to them in Spanish, which they do not understand, nor by fighting injustice.
You will simply write them a letter advising them to voluntarily disestablish the PBID or face a legal action including depositions which will open a big can of worms about apparent criminal irregularities.
If you do that right, do your legal research and apply psyops in art of war most likely they will surrender.
Remember, they have so many skeletons in their closet that they will take your bluff seriously.
I think you may be right. They usually settle.
“Are you going to remember to VOTE”….. when?
each and every time my friend.
“each and every time my friend”… can I vote tomorrow?
Adam,
Art Lomeli: Where in the U.S. Constitution is there a citizens’ petition right to end taxation? ”
Contact Herb Rose, TAB answering Service to get this information and other issues you contest. He can give you the legal particulars that Santa Ana pride’s attorney has researched ……..if appropriate to produce for you.
Adam,
“You’re right that the U.S. Constitution mandates any sort of referendum to be a 50 percent (plus one) popular vote.
Whether that popular vote provision can be interpreted as a one dollar one vote method in the case of the PBID is unclear. It’s gone unchallenged with hundreds of PBIDS across the country. And there is no case law that I know of that would set precedent.
The only way to figure that out is to challenge the PBID in court. ”
You reported that Santa Ana has a Community Management District set up by the city not as a PBID.
So in this case it would not be a PBID challenge arguing the State PBID formation protocol.
Regardless of what the PBID is there must be some governing documents. (articles of incorporation, bylaws, CC&Rs…. etc.)
A copy of these documents must have been handed to every property owner.
Can someone get a copy and read it?
Please clarify the Management position of Archer
Altstaetter with Downtown Inc.? who authorize him to represents the Properties owners at the city council?
were is Vicky Baxter and the employees rules ?
I believe he was contracted to promote and manage the summer concert series and he appears to be in charge of promoting the East End.
Admin, and Gabacha, are Archer’s Gay political Force a group to be ignored or a group to be reckoned with? confronted? made transparent?
Approach the issue with extreme sensitivity. It is a minefield by design. Watch out for boobie traps!
Historically Santa Ana’s gay community has been fairly anti-Latino. I hope Archer’s group won’t be the same.
“I hope Archer’s group won’t be the same”….. Hmmmm
Homosexuals are all same.
Because they have no families they have high disposable income and enjoy upscale living standard.
The Latinos are exact opposite.
Large families low disposable income which negatively impact a community.
So do keep dreaming Zorro.
Long Beach has a Gay Ghetto Fiala. Not just because it sounds Chic. Not all Latinos are multi-breeders.
“Not all (…)” is probably the most stupid argument one can make.
Stanley said:
Homosexuals are all same.
Because they have no families they have high disposable income and enjoy upscale living standard.
The Latinos are exact opposite
Homosexuals are all same.
Because they have no families they have high disposable income and enjoy upscale living standard.
The Latinos are exact opposite
Stan’s response to mateo:
Stanley Fiala says:
September 12, 2011 at 4:00 pm
“Not all (…)” is probably the most stupid argument one can make.
YOU ARE THE ONE THAT SAID “HOMOSEXUALS ARE ALL THE SAME” AND ” THE LATINOS ARE EXACT OPPOSITE”.
Dr. Amalgam stated: [YOU ARE THE ONE THAT SAID “HOMOSEXUALS ARE ALL THE SAME” AND ” THE LATINOS ARE EXACT OPPOSITE”.]
Pleas pay attention!
HOMOSEXUALS ARE ALL THE SAME (blah, blah, blah);
THE LATINOS ARE EXACT OPPOSITE (blah, blah, blah);
Therefore, it is Homosexuals’ (blah, blah, blah) vs. Latinos’ (blah, blah, blah) which is in the opposition.
Not as you have incorrectly interpreted based on your gravely insufficient ESL: Homosexuals’ vs. Latinos’ are in the opposition.
The usual stupid Liberal argument is “Not all are same” trying to defeat negativity of stereotyping and profiling and racism and culturism and etc. etc. etc.
As they say: If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, looks like a duck, it must be a duck.
So if you are in Santa Ana and you see lot of children playing on the street creating art on the walls you are in Latino neighborhood.
In contrast if you see everything nice and neat and no children around you are in homo neighborhood and homos do not like what Latins do, end of story.
Stan, write better so people do not misinterpret you.
You say Homosexuals are all same because they have no families so they have money and enjoy upscale lifestyle. you say Latinos are exact opposite.
So my ESL issue and that of others misinterprets you as saying:
– All homosexuals because you said “all homosexuals are same” have no families only Latinos do. So Homosexuals are orphans and Bastards according to you.
– All Latinos because we are opposite of Homosexuals have families therefore do not have disposable incomes, so we can not have upscale lifestyles.
I BELIEVE YOU HAVE THE ESL ISSUE, APPARENT IN YOUR WRITING.
Just having some fun with you.
“I BELIEVE YOU HAVE THE ESL ISSUE, APPARENT IN YOUR WRITING.”….. Hmmmmm
My ESL writing is excellent, it must be your ESL reading fortified by your iQuotient (not synonymous with the iPod) Dr. Amalgam.
“So Homosexuals are orphans and Bastards according to you.”….. Hmmmm
Where is the logic?
The homos have parents so they are not orphans.
However, homos can’t procreate so their genetic disorder ends with their death.
That is why I am against prop 18 and for homo marriage.
As they exit their closets they stop having offspring, as result of overt hetero lifestyle, and 50 years from now there will be no more homos and Latinos will rule the world.
You silly Boy Fiala! just as some say that Jews are not a race, many know that Homos are not a genetics based sexual orientation. Many Homos are Homo because they are politically opportunistic. they know that it is in their pathetic advantage to act like victimized white men so that they can weasle more land grabbing from Darky.
Which member of the City Council voted against establishing the PBID? Any council member whom voted against the PBID could have this agendized and re-visted and possibly vote against disbanding the PBID.
Stan,
You said Homosexuals have no families.
fam·i·ly (fm-l, fml) KEY
NOUN:
pl. fam·i·lies
A fundamental social group in society typically consisting of one or two parents and their children.
Two or more people who share goals and values, have long-term commitments to one another, and reside usually in the same dwelling place.
All the members of a household under one roof.
A group of persons sharing common ancestry. See Usage Note at collective noun.
This is why my ESL disability interpreted your comment as I did.
My ESL Disability is having trouble understanding your superior intellect again.
You wrote:
“As they exit their closets they stop having offspring, as result of overt hetero lifestyle, and 50 years from now there will be no more homos and Latinos will rule the world. ”
Stan,
Please educate my inferior intellect compared to yours as to how, biologically, Homosexuals can stop having offspring? Homosexuals are born to a seemingly heterosexual couple unless you believe one or both of their parents are closet homosexuals…..this is what your comment suggests.
You are an interesting guy. Of course it makes no sense.