Why the Current La Mesa PBID Must Be Rejected!

The promoters of the La Mesa PBID desire an attractive and vibrant downtown village area. To this idea there is no disagreement. We would be hard pressed to find even one person who would favor the degradation and decay of any of any aspect of our community. Were anyone to hurl such a charge at another it would seen for what it is-political haymaking. However, we are now engaged local debate. Whether higher fees (taxes) are needed to keep the La Mesa Village area vibrant? And if yes, Can citizens afford it, do they want it, just how much will it really cost, by what assessment or tax rate and by what means shall it be approved and is it fair?

The current version of the La Mesa PBID is fundamentally, I believe, undemocratic and would establish a very bad public policy position. Of one issue, it presents a form like the House branch of Congressional representation, such as proportional or weighted voting power. But it denies the complete protections thereof for the individual since one voice will control all the votes of that block. Troubling features include that a minority of property owners in numbers, who would outweigh in proportional voting the majority number of property owners because of their property mass, may craft an assessment zone and get the proposed measure on a ballot being able to use the weighted muscle of the like minded elected officials where otherwise a majority number, not weighted, would not get to the required goal.

Under the current count of supporters, a minority simple number and minority weighted number of all property owners has indicated support for the measure. If the City of La Mesa were to be included, the simple number would still be a minority, while the weighted number would nearly reach the needed 50% mark needed to move to the final ballot phase, giving substantial help to the proponents.

But in the final balloting only a 50% weighted number of those who do vote in this final round will carry the measure. So even if the City of La Mesa elected officials do not vote yes in the final balloting they will have helped put a measure in place that could effectively allow a minority vote, both simple and weighted, to impose a fee on a majority of the property owners.

Of course the City must still send a legal notice to each property owner advising of the measure, the public meeting(s) and the time of voting. Still, under this formula there seems little incentive for the proponents to contact or enlist more than the bare minimum number of property owners to gain their victory. They could easily and would assuredly concentrate their lobbying efforts on those already in favor of or leaning towards a yes vote while ignoring the hard to reach and known opponents. In the end phase balloting a “NO” vote will mean “no” to the PBID count. But “no vote” may be almost as good for the proponents as a yes vote in that each abstain, for whatever reason, will reduce the threshold passage level.

In addition to the above another highly disturbing feature of this proposal is that is seem to be able to hang out forever-or until is is approved. Do any of us want to create 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 number of votes to win. One shudders to think of the possibilities this will open up for a taxing authority as they learn to exploit this new found revenue enhancement tool, and virtually unlimited power.

Some will say that it is immoral to waste the taxpayers money already spent by restarting the process. This is a point with merit. However, would not be better to recognize the structural deficiencies of the measure as related to how it effectively can, and likely will, disenfranchise some property owners?

Of a higher moral consideration should be that no governmental/private endeavor, even if technically legal (ethical) and claimed for the end of public good, should wield the power to run over even one property owner and deprive him or her of a fair and equal voice (representation) in this assessment fee (taxation) without due process.

The ramifications of this PBID vote go far beyond the current measure and will likely forever affect the way La Mesa structures it's taxes and fees. It simply puts taxing or fee charging authority in the hands of a minority who happen to be wealthier and politically connected large property owners.

If the desired end is truly worthy of a fully informed citizenry, there is no shame in backing up and starting over to ensure the actual means to accomplish the end is correct and fair, and that all known potential for abuse is eliminated.

The time is here to finally and formally eliminate this albatross. If the current elected officials will not correct the situation, we must find ones who will.