.

Council Won't Consider Signing PBID Petition Without More Positive Support

The council voted 4-1 not to call for a downtown PBID vote until support for a ballot on a new assessment reaches "50 percent plus one" of allocated property owners.

Opponents of the proposed property-based business improvement district (PBID) for the downtown Village in La Mesa won a small victory Tuesday night, and the plan, as it is currently constructed, may be dying a slow death.

The City Council voted 4-1 (with Mark Arapostathis the dissenting vote) to approve a motion that would allow the PBID steering committee to continue its pursuit of the requisite votes necessary to move the project from the petition stage to the ballot stage.

Near the conclusion of the more than three-hour meeting, after council discussion and public comments from both proponents and opponents of that plan, it was decided that the steering committee would be allowed to continue to garner support for the PBID among property owners that would be affected by the proposal.

Vice Mayor Ernie Ewin said that he was apprehensive to move to approve the council’s role in the PBID because he is “looking for a little more substantial support,” than the PBID’s backers currently have.

Ewin indicated that substantial support means having at least “50 percent plus one” of the property owners supporting the PBID, which is what is required to move to the ballot phase.

“My concern is, and I’ve said this from the get-go, that I want to see a strong sense of support from the people that are going to be subject to these assessments,” he said. “It’s always been my understanding that we weren’t going to cast our vote until a time when the petition phase was completed. I do like PBIDs. I think they can be beneficial, but I also want to make sure that the process we get is appropriate.”

The majority of public speakers were against the PBID, many of whom have been outspoken opponents of the plan.

See also: La Mesa Village PBID Topic Page on Patch

Bill Stokes, a PM Master from the La Mesa Masonic Lodge, also spoke out against the proposal. He said that the Lodge does pay property taxes to the city, and at its current tax rate, he expects that they can remain in their current location on Date Avenue for about five to seven years.  He said that for property owners like the Lodge, will see no direct benefit from the plan.

“We have no way to generate revenue,” said Stokes. “With the PBID [assessments], it would only accelerate our leaving.”

Jim Wieboldt, a member of the PBID steering committee, spoke on behalf of the committee. He said that since the April 24 council meeting—in which the council’s making a decision on the PBID was postponed until Tuesday night—he and other committee members have been actively seeking more support.

When asked by Ewin how far along the support had come, Wieboldt did not answer with specifics.

“I have been advised by our counsel not to give specific dollar amounts or percentages at this time,” Wieboldt said, to which opponents of the PBID sitting in the crowd scoffed.

However, the committee’s efforts at gaining support apparently did not get a lot of traction, as Wieboldt revealed, “even if the city decides to vote for us, it will not put us over the top” in guaranteeing a vote of affected property owners.

The city of La Mesa is the largest property owner in the current PBID area.

One of the major points of contention for PBID opponents is that of the $65,000 allocated for service maintenance as part of the plan. Some property owners are upset, since they are already taxed as a way to pay for current maintenance known as baseline services.

As part of this form of the PBID, the money in the budget for service maintenance would either be for streetscape improvements that do not currently exist, or an increased frequency in maintenance that is currently being done.

Some council members are split on their support of the current form. Mayor Art Madrid, who serves as the council representative on the steering committee, wants the PBID established. Council member Ruth Sterling does not.

After hearing public comment, it was Sterling who first responded with her concerns of the project. Reading aloud from a list apparetnly prepared before the meeting, she stated the reasons she could not support the PBID. Among them was the inclusion of the school district and churches, which would not benefit as much as other retail shops.

Arapostathis agreed with this notion.

“When people talk about our downtown, they come for very specific reasons, but they’re not walking the downtown to go to their insurance agent, or to go to their realtor,” he said. “They’re going for retail.”

He also said that he thinks a PBID necessary, if it were to help improve the La Mesa streetscape.

“I think the downtown needs a cityscape and we need improvements, and we need a maintenance aspect,” he said. “We do need to consider something though, because if we do have a streetscape and we don’t have a mechanism to keep it improved, it’s not gonna be there.  And we’re gonna be right back where we started.”

After further discussion, Sterling asked, “So how does this work? When can this be dissolved?”

Legally, there is no time frame or statute that the steering committee must adhere to, in its attempt to garner the necessary support for the PBID. Pondering this, councilmember Dave Allan asked a poignant question.

“If [the council] can’t stop this, how long will [the committee’s search for support] continue?” he asked.

In truth, there is no right answer to this question. As long as the steering committee wants to continue to try and talk to property owners and advocate for their plan, they have legal grounds to do so. Realistically, it could be two weeks or six months or 10 years.

But whereas before, when the issue was tabled at the April council meeting, with no clear resolution, the committee has a specific goal in mind: 50 percent plus one. If and when that percentage is reached, only then will the PBID move forward.

Madrid is optimistic that it will happen, though he contends, it may take some time. He mentioned that two major property owners have yet to sign the petition, due to logistics and chain-of-command mandates. Having these  owners onboard will go a long way toward getting to the magic number.

“Fifty plus one. If that’s the case, I think we can achieve that goal,” he said. “The council cannot, as Ms. Sterling was suggesting, just eliminate the committee. So now we have to deal with a more aggressive campaign.”

Bill Jaynes July 25, 2012 at 08:09 PM
"I'd imagine that the anti- PBID group will be demanding a mailing list or label templates once they figure out that the pro-PBID has/will be given these resources. Also will I be providing the Action Committee with documents directly or should they all go through my Client - the City? We should discuss these sorts of things as well." I've attached Mr. Henning's email so you can read it in its entirety, should you be concerned that I am twisting his words into "misinformation." This reminds me that I haven't filed a Public Records Act request lately, so I should get on that. Did you know that after the first one that you asked me to file, I received hundreds of email copies? Here's the odd thing, however: when I filed the second one I received barely a dozen. I've been honing the rough draft of my next PRA request for a few months, and I expect it to be more fruitful. Thank you for coming back to defend PBID on Patch. May I renew my offer to debate you, Parking Commissioner James Wieboldt, or any designee of the "Action" Committee's choosing, regarding the purported benefits and manifest flaws of PBID? You may pick the rules, venue, anything you wish to finally have an open discussion where we can get at the pure and honest facts. Perhaps the City will provide us a room free of charge! Bill Jaynes ALL THINGS BRIGHT AND BRITISH 619 464 2298 (proudly purveying "2% markup" Cadbury chocolate bars at the same location in the heart of the Village for over 30 years)
Scott H. Kidwell July 25, 2012 at 10:17 PM
The big story last night 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-managers-actions-during-labor-talks-prompted-demand-for-resignation.pdf
Craig Maxwell July 26, 2012 at 12:40 AM
Exactly, Scott. Their secretiveness is symbolic of this whole shady deal. As I just told a friend, my Texas Grandma sum up messes like this one by saying, "You can't make a silk purse from a sow's ear." The PBID proponents started out with a questionable product and a very unforthright way of putting it together and selling it to the community. It's little wonder they've encountered so much resistance. Honestly really is the best policy, but politicians like Art are so addicted to doing things their own dishonest way that they take that path even when it's completely unnecessary. Too, bad. It just winds up wasting everyone's time.
Marie McLaughlin July 26, 2012 at 03:59 AM
Bill, do you know if an engineering company was hired to configure all the assessments? That couldn't have been cheap either. I researched parcels numbers with their assessments and was surprised at how low so many were compared to mine.
Things I Learned July 26, 2012 at 05:33 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l-ALH051HX0

Boards

More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »