Local business owners cry foul on business district mandate
Larry Clark, former president of the Alameda Business Ass'n and business owner on The Alameda in SJ says that the process used by City Hall to charge local businesses an assessment for so-called "improvements" in the area was flawed and corrupt. A Q&A with Clark follows.
What’s being imposed on residents and property owners along The Alameda?
A significant assessment is now being imposed via the property tax of residents and property owners on (and near) The Alameda here in San Jose. Residents and Commercial Property Owners (“Property Owners”) voted against this assessment by a large margin. The assessment was made possible because the City and County voted in favor of this assessment on behalf of all of their own public properties without exception. This assessment will be paid by taxpayers! This was in direct opposition to the wishes of Property Owners.
What will the cost be to Property Owners over time?
This assessment will amount to as much as $8.8 Million over a 15-year period in total. The assessment allows for an increase of 7% per year for this 15-year period. There have been discussions to increase and expand the geographic area of this district causing even more properties to be subject to this onerous assessment.
Who designed the scope of the geography of the proposed District
A third-party consultant was paid by the Alameda Business Association (“ABA”) with money granted from City of San Jose to design the boundaries and cost of this District . Some estimate the District outside consultant’s fee was over $60,000, all paid from funds from the City. The scope and boundaries of the District were never discussed with the majority of Property Owners prior to the preparation of this consultant’s report.
How many eligible Property Owners actually cast a ballot and a vote?
Only 135 of about 425 Property Owners cast ballots either for or against this assessment (32%). 57% of those Property Owners who voted, voted against this assessment. A scant 13% of those Property Owners eligible to vote, voted in favor of the assessment. Nearly 8% of the ballots were returned as undeliverable, indicating that the property tax addresses used by the City Clerk were either in error or out of date.
Did the local Public government entities effect the vote?
Public entities (City of San Jose, County of Santa Clara, San Jose School District and Santa Clara VTA) all voted in unison and in favor of this property tax assessment. Of course, this is actually public money and ultimately paid by all of us taxpayers. Public entities constituted an overwhelming 21% of the votes all cast in favor of this assessment. Without this inclusion, the vote would have failed.
Opposed In Favor Difference
Property Owners (only) 55.6% 44.4% 11.2% Opposed
Property Owners plus Gov’t 49.7% 50.3% 00.6% In Favor
Did the election process conform to the stated ballot requirements for voting?
The written City Clerk voting procedures were not adhered to in this vote. Under the “Procedures of Completion” issued by the City Clerk, each voter was to include:
1). The Legal owner’s address
2). The Legal owner’s site address
Neither of these important data points were included in the ballot itself by the City Clerk. This constitutes a ballot fatal flaw and defect creating a faulty election.
How much did the City government pay to initiate this election?
According to an email sent by a City employee involved with this project the “OEDCA and council office have given close to $500,000 in grants to the Alameda Business Association leading up to the current process to form the Community Benefit Improvement District.”
Documentation discovered for these City Grants include (but are not limited to):
$248,000 Ani and Cat LLC
$75,000 Alameda Business Association
$12,345 Alameda Business Association
What kind of properties did the City own and to cast votes in this election?
A City used a Park to vote in favor of this CBID. The Park has no building, no standing as a commercial or residential property or any reason to participate in a CBID. Without its inclusion, this vote would have failed.
The City used the Arena Motel to vote in favor of tis CBID, a state funded facility allowing homeless to use drugs and alcohol in the facility. This is one reason The Alameda is in decline. Without the Motel’s inclusion, this vote would have failed.
Clark's Conclusion
The vote for this CBID must be nullified. This election was flawed and biased from the beginning. The decision to form and fund a CBID was financed by funds provided by the City of San Jose countermanding the will of ordinary Property Owners. The vote in favor itself could not have survived without the City’s vote, funds and participation, even when willfully including City properties like a City Park and a California State funded homeless motel. The form of the ballot itself, under its own terms, was inconsistent, did not adhere to its own terms and was flawed. A clear majority of these Property Owners, in their wisdom, saw that formation of this CBID was not in their interest or in the interest of The Alameda area. Outside consultants, on the other hand, were paid handsomely with City funds to form and to lobby for this CBID. The Property Owners, if this CBID is allowed to be formed, know that it will cause irreparable harm to the economic viability of this important area of San Jose.
Lawrence Clark Biography:
Larry grew up in San Jose and has had a business on The Alameda for 25 years. He served as President of the Alameda Business Association (ABA), founded the Rose, White and Blue 4th of July Parade, helped secure funding for the repaving improvements and islands along The Alameda and sponsored two history books related to The Alameda including “The Alameda, The Beautiful Way” written by his daughter for the benefit of the ABA.