SR-021908-13CCouncil Meeting: February 12, 2008
13- ~
February, 2008
i°1
Santa Monica, California
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE -MEMORANDUM
To:
From:
Date:
City Council
Councilmember Genser
February 12, 2008
13-D: Request of Councilmember Genser that the Council direct the City Attorney to
return with a draft ordinance for Council consideration that would (1) lower the
threshold to 35% of the owners of properties to be assessed to initiate a ballot
measure on the formation of a Property Based Assessment District, and (2)
allow a Property Based Assessment District to be established for a term of 30-
years.
13- c
February'F , 2008
1 ~~
r=ES 1
Prom: Santa Monica City Manager's Office
Sent: Monday, February 11,2008 7:53 AM
To: Maria Dacanay
Subject: FW: Email from SMCLC website
-----Original Message-----
From: 4jeffsegal@gmail.com [mailto:4jeffsegalagmail.com]
Sent: Friday, February 08, 2008 4:37 PM
To: council@smclc.net; planningcom@smclc.net; manager@smclc.net; planningdir@smclc.net
Subject: Email from SMCLC website
You have received a contact message:
Contact Name: Jeff Segal
Contact Email: 4jeffsegal@gmail.com
Subject: Item 13-D at next Tuesday\'s City Council Meeting
Message: Dear Members of City Council:
I writing to you to urge you to vote against item 13-D, at next Tuesday's City Council
Meeting.
The city's existing law for property assessment district is already way to broad. Special
Assessment are intended for creating sewer lines and street lights, were the cost and the
benefit are equally received by taxed property owners. The city is now proposing to use
special assessments to promote downtown "night life" with no connection between those who
pay the cost, and those who receive the economic benefits. Such mischief should never be
allowed, and the proposed 13-D would make a bad situation even worse.
There is a certain bottom line that l3-D is all about expanding the Bayside District.
This quasi-public entity is a monster, which is completely out of control. Theoriginal
reason for the creation of the Bayside District was to reimburse the city for providing
parking for the buildings in the Bayside District. All the property owners, in the
Bayside District, have saved millions of dollars by not having to provide their own
parking structures. Any tax they pay is a minute fraction of the millions of dollars that
they have saved. The problem is that the money is going to the wrong place. It should be
going directly to the city to reimburse the city for its investment in parking structures.
Instead the money goes to the Bayside District Corporation, who does not reimburse the
city, but instead waste the funds by having sub-standard personal do the work that is
supposed to be done by city staff. The most graphic example is Bayside Distirct
Corporation's negligence in th
e farmers' market tragedy. Maintaining security, for events oncity streets, is supposed
to be handled by the Santa Monica Police Department, and had Santa Monica Police
Department handled the farmers' market events, ten lives would have been saved, and mass
devastation would have been avoided.
I urge you to vote against 13-D, and to vote against any expansion of the Bayside
District. I also urge you to consider abolishing the Bayside District Corporations, and
have the Bayside District's special assessment funds go directly to the city, where they
belong.
I appreciate your taking the time to read my thoughts.
Best regards,
Jeff Segal
1211 Georgina Ave.
i ~7 j~Q
C+~ ~ ! 4CUO
The SMCLC post office is a community
service of SMCLC to residents. The views sent from this post office do not necessarily
represent SMCLC's views, but rather are the views of the sender.
2