La Mesa Today - Community Website & Online Newspaper
Love where you live!
Council Won't Sign PBID Petition Yet
LA MESA -- This city is in its Centennial year and, well, its politics is showing its age.
Some may interpret that judgment as respect for the complexity of its issues and the measured ways it resolves its differences.
Others who sat through Tuesday night's council meeting might see a touch of dementia in this aging.
For nearly two hours, the council listened as various factions of the community adamantly expressed their views of plans to establish a professional management for the city's historic Village downtown. This was not the confusing part of the meeting. The lines in these speaker sands were as clear as lines on a map.
There were small business merchants and some service professionals who opposed the Property Based Improvement District because they fear it will mean more costs and little benefit. There were other merchants who believed the plan would increase business and drive up revenues to more than cover the assessments the PBID would bring. And Brian Marshall, superintendent of the La Mesa/Spring Valley School District, who offered an alternative plan that would focus on retail business and exempt churches, schools and residential property, argued only business would really benefit from much of the PBID services.
What proved difficult for the public to parse was how the five council members figured their way to the ultimate conclusion of this chapter of the seemingly endless PBID drama. Each of the council members had their head scratching moments.
Mayor Art Madrid, whose position in favor of the PBID has been clear and consistent "for 30 years,'' he pointed out, tried to put forward a persuasive argument to persuade two others to join him in supporting the PBID firmly now, but he was continually drawn into distracting asides. Madrid and frequent critic Craig Maxwell exchanged artful exchanges that were more about their frequent battles than the matter at hand. And Madrid and Marshall got into an elongated discussion of the many ways his district and the city work well together, though clearly this was not one of those nights.
Vice Mayor Ernie Ewin was drawn into jousts with the pro-PBID forces who wanted to hold him to some promises he made in a May meeting with the group, but was having trouble remembering this night.
Council member Dave Allan, who has just a few meetings left before he leaves office, was angered by suggestions from speakers that the council was failing to show leadership.
Council member Mark Arapostathis, new to this debate, remained largely quiet but clearly wanted to vote on a motion that would end this discussion once and for all.
And then there was the highlight of the evening, a not-so-spontaneous soliloquy offered by Council Member Ruth Sterling that raised a variety of concerns about the PBID and foreshadowed her eventual question "When can we dissolve this?" Her speech had to be confusing to those who had watched Sterling vote the opposite way in April when this issue last came up.
Sterling's detractors were telling anyone who would listen after the meeting that she had caved to threats against her re-election bid by PBID opponents.
Eventually, Ewin prevailed with an argument that began with "Why don't we just follow the law?"
The council then voted 4-1 to say it would not vote its own weighted petition in support of the PBID until more than 50 percent of Village property owners had signaled their willingness to sign on to the plan themselves. Ewin's argument that the city should not be seen to be forcing the PBID on the community had prevailed.
After the meeting, Jim Weiboldt, the merchant who was representing the PBID proponents at this meeting, said Team PBID seemed to have three choices:
It is the last of these options that reminded people of how this latest PBID proposal originally began. Frustrations over the La Mesa Village Merchants Association inability to consistently raise money for cleaning and beautifying the Village -- even to maintain planters at one point -- led a group of merchants to ask the city to help pursue a professional management plan that would require contributions from all Village property owners. Similar plans have driven improvements in the Gaslamp, Little Italy and El Cajon.
The city funded the two-year PBID study and Madrid and Allan were appointed to represent the city on the effort's Steering Committee. But as the issues have returned to council, it has become increasingly clear that Madrid's ardor for the plan is not shared as ardently by the other four council members, some of whom have demonstrated confusion over some of the basic elements of the plan they had funded.
It is an election year and, with a large and well-educated field starting to take shape to compete for the two seats, the testing of political winds could be particularly sensitive right now. The PBID opponents have been vociferous and it turns out many downtown property owners are, in fact, from outside La Mesa. A calculation of the election votes at stake in this issue could favor the opponents; Sterling will hope so.
Still, the PBID supporters may have time on their side. There is no deadline in state law for beating that 50 percent mark and they report much progress in getting approvals.
"But a lot of our efforts involve corporate owners and we have to wait for the out-of-state boards and their committees to review these issues,'' Wieboldt said. "It takes time."
The PBID supporters irritated several of the council members Tuesday because they refused to give specific information on how many property owners had already signed the petition. To do so, they said, would give the PBID opponents targets to spread "misinformation" and erode support among those who have already signed the petitions.
In some ways, Tuesday's meeting didn't really move the ball that far in any direction, but it did clarify for the PBID proponents that if they are going to pass the PBID petition hurdle, they'll need to do it without the substantial weight of the city's Village properties on their tally sheet.
Views: 490
Tags: Government, La Mesa Mayor Art Madrid, La Mesa Today, La Mesa news, Property Based Improvement District
Comment
Looks as though Ewin did follow through on his promise to make a motion to not have the city shut the door on it taking a formal position on whether or not to sign on to the PBID. The current PBID proposal will be able to hang out forever-or until is is approved. So have we now allowed a policy wherein a taxing, or fee charging instrumentality, with the assistance of like minded elected officials, can hold open forever the possibility of a fee (tax) or until it garners the needed support?
Comment by Bill Jaynes on July 26, 2012 at 6:35pm Again, thank you Jenna for clarifying your original comment. I guess I really had no idea what you were trying to say.
I hope you will join us as we move forward.
Bill Jaynes
ALL THINGS BRIGHT AND BRITISH
619 464 2298
Comment by Jenna Zeledon on July 26, 2012 at 5:14pm Again, Bill, please do not twist what I said. I stated that Ernie promised to make a motion to hold off on making a final decision as to whether or not the City Council would sign the petition. Not once did I state anything about him voting either way. I mentioned in my time at the podium that I hoped he would stay true to those words, that's it. There were numerous people at that meeting and as linked above, it was referenced in the previous article. Is that, the truth, so hard to believe?
Comment by Bill Jaynes on July 26, 2012 at 12:13pm My apologies, Jenna. I completely misunderstood your point.
Although I don't believe for a second that Ernie Ewin committed his vote in advance of public discussion at Council, I can see where his words might have left you with that impression.
What I think is going on is that the Council realizes that they are in a bind. What started on their part as an effort to develop a cost recovery mechanism for the enhanced benefits of the Streetscape--a quite reasonable goal, I might add--morphed, once out of their sight, into a singular focus on PBID in the secret meetings of 2010.
Take, for example, this March 26, 2010 email to a City staffer from consultant Ed Henning, who is being paid out of our parking meter monies. Even before the first secret meeting in April 2010 of the city selected "representative group of stakeholders", ostensibly gathered to brainstorm any and all recovery mechanisms, Mr. Henning wrote that he was attaching a slide show to be discussed in a private meeting with City staff to be held on March 31, 2010. He adds, in part:
"The slide show is not completely self explanatory and does require a fair amount of my nuanced narratives. It quickly jumps into the PBID option after reviewing what else is typically available and typically probably hasn't been working to well."
Mr. Henning adds:
"This show is probably longer than it needs to be for an open workshop of all stakeholders but probably is suitable for a focused City staff exchange (like Wednesday's meeting) or a stakeholder steering group meeting or meetings - more elaboration can be applied where needed. It provides essentially at a glance - what a PBID is all about. We can customize it to reflect local sensitivities or expressed needs depending upon who the audience may be."
This is not to cast aspersions upon Mr. Henning, who views the City as his client, and appears do believe he is doing exactly what was requested of him. I am happy to provide this email in its entirety, or the many, many more I have collated, if you wish to be sure of the context.
Unfortunately, it doesn't appear that the full Council was ever apprised in the beginning that once started down the road to PBID there was no way to exit and return home--even if we paid for the gas. Now, the entire City can be held hostage--until reason and civic duty prevail at Team HQ.
Even if you don't wish to publicly debate PBID with a 2% chocolate bar salesman anymore, which I would understand, please know that any time you care to join us as we move forward in developing real solutions to address real issues in the Village, the door is always open.
Bill Jaynes
ALL THINGS BRIGHT AND BRITISH
619 464 2298
Comment by Jenna Zeledon on July 26, 2012 at 10:08am Bill,
The only thing I will respond to is the fact that I was talking about my integrity being on the line when I effectively asked someone to back their words. Pure and simple. Please, do not twist my words or make them out to be something their not. To question my "grace" is pretty ridiculous... if you remember, not one person there who was in support of the issue at hand was loud, started applauding, etc. Even Councilman
Arapostathis made a point to bring up the fact that the whole thing was pretty civil and respectful up until that type of behavior started to happen.
God Bless, Bill!
Comment by Bill Jaynes on July 26, 2012 at 8:08am Hi Jenna,
I have to confess that I don't understand what you are trying to say. Didn't the Council effectively remove your deadline even though TeamPBID refused to release any hard numbers regarding the claimed support for this scheme? (One that was initiated with taxpayer money, I might add.) Isn't that what you wanted?
Whose integrity are you calling into play? Ernie Ewin's? I don't think that's going to fly with people who know him or have watched him in these meetings, and I say that as someone who wasn't happy to see the shock paddles applied to PBID's corpse the other night. Seriously, there's such a thing a grace in victory--temporary though it might be.
We all need to take Chris Shea's latest blog to heart.
Anyway, we need to focus on keeping the long delayed Streetscape Project on track. That's why we're moving forward with a discussion of the benefits of a Maintenance District that can be quickly put in place, while the merchants dual track a separate discussion regarding a traditional BID to handle marketing, promotions, etc., without dunning our residential neighbors and impeding the missions of our churches and non-profits with unnecessary fees and tax assessments.
In the linked article you refer to, I pointed out in the comment section that the Team's examples of Little Italy, Hillcrest, and North Park, are in fact not PBIDs, but rather follow the model we have proposed: a combined Maintenance District and a traditional BID. I also posed several questions for you and Mr. Wieboldt that have yet to be answered. If you now have the time, would you mind if we carry on that discussion here? I'd be happy to repost my questions.
The Team had some good ideas mixed in with the dross. We intend to ensure a truly open process this time, as we move forward, and we'd like to invite you to join us in that effort rather than continue a dead end battle that isn't helping anyone and sure isn't getting the roads repaired.
Bill Jaynes
ALL THINGS BRIGHT AND BRITISH
619 464 2298
"The city funded the two-year PBID study and Madrid and Allan were appointed to represent the city on the effort's Steering Committee. But as the issues have returned to council, it has become increasingly clear that Madrid's ardor for the plan is not shared as ardently by the other four council members, some of whom have demonstrated confusion over some of the basic elements of the plan they had funded."
Was the city representative to be an advocate for the PBID interests at city council meetings? Right now it is obvious to nearly everyone, based on numerous city council meetings, that the city council representative on the PBID group, the Mayor, is more inclined to promote the specific interests of the large private property owners in the PBID over all others. Whom is he representing?
One cannot serve two masters.
Comment by Jenna Zeledon on July 25, 2012 at 10:04pm Chris - I'd especially like to thank you for your fair and accurate reporting, especially in linking to your previous article which backs the words I spoke to Vice-Mayor Ewin asking him to keeping his promise to the PBID supporters group when he met with us. Although I know it would have been merely out formality, given the legal grounds regarding the formation of such a nonprofit, to make a motion that the City would not make a yes/no decision to sign the petition it would have been nice if promises were kept and one's integrity not called into play. Please keep up the fantastic work!
Comment by Marie McLaughlin on July 25, 2012 at 3:42pm Vice Mayor Ewin said that the law does not allow the Council to end the effort. Unfortunately Mayor Madrid is determined to keep this thing alive as long as he stays in office. I found the mayor's tone with Brian Marshall, Superintendent of Schools, to be disrespectful, demeaning and intimidating. Mr. Marshall opposes the current PBID effort, and the mayor's chagrin was obvious.
The big story last night, to me, was not the PBID itself but rather the withholding of information from the majority of the city council by a group that looks to have included at least one city official! So much for open government!
A La Mesa city manager was eventully let go for withholding information from the city council during labor negotiations a some years ago. How is it the Mayor can expect the other council members to vote on something, in good faith to their constituents, if they are not provided ALL relevant information.
http://lamesacitizenoversightgroup.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/city...
The Wall Street Journal
Over 50 percent of Americans expect home prices to rise
More than half of Americans now expect the country’s home prices to climb within the next year, illustrating a growing optimism toward the health of the housing industry, according to new data from Fannie Mae. Read the full story.
Los Angeles Times
Some homes are slow to sell even in the hottest markets
With full-fledged sellers’ markets underway in dozens of metropolitan areas around the country, new research has found curious statistical patterns emerging: Even in cities where listings get multiple offers within days or hours, significant numbers of homes are sitting on the market for six months, 12 months, or more with no takers. Among the reasons: Mispricing, excessive restrictions on access to buyers and agents, failure to clean or make repairs, and a variety of other marketing bungles. Read the full story.
The Wall Street Journal
Principal forgiveness could reduce costs for taxpayers
Allowing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to reduce loan balances for borrowers who owe more than their homes are worth could ultimately reduce mortgage defaults and save the government money, according to a report by the Congressional Budget Office. Read the full story.
A blog post by La Mesa Today was featured
rick griffin posted a blog post
Barry Jantz commented on La Mesa Today's blog post 'Crime Watch'2 events by La Mesa Today were featuredLa Mesa Today posted events
A blog post by midge hyde was featured© 2013 Created by La Mesa Today.
You need to be a member of La Mesa Today - Community Website & Online Newspaper to add comments!
Join La Mesa Today - Community Website & Online Newspaper