> ## Content Index > Fetch the complete content index at: https://www.smdp.com/llms.txt > Use this file to discover other available public pages before exploring further. # A district divided - URL: https://www.smdp.com/a-district-divided/ - Published: 2008-07-08T15:00:00.000Z - Updated: 2026-10-24T20:05:43.000Z - Author: Kevin Herrera - Tags: Business, Downtown, #archive-import, Homeless *Vote over new assessment district exposes rift between property owners* DOWNTOWN Some property owners, including the City Council and the owners of Santa Monica Place, believe it will help Downtown remain a premier shopping and entertainment destination in Southern California while others feel it may price them out of the neighborhood, becoming more of a burden than a boon. Both sides will have an opportunity to voice their opinions tonight at City Hall when property Downtown owners cast their vote in favor of or in opposition to it — a new assessment district that could generate roughly $3.7 million a year (with a 5 percent annual increase) for the next 20 years. The assessment requires a simple majority vote, which is weighed based on the amount a property owner would pay in new assessments. After 10 years, property owners will have the opportunity to kill it or extend it. The vote, which is expected to be close (roughly 200 of the 256 property owners have already submitted their ballots, which have yet to be counted), will bring to an end a nearly three-year-process that has exposed deep rifts between property owners on Third Street and those in surrounding areas as well as City Hall. The consultant who oversaw the process has referred to himself as a therapist at times, helping resolve long-standing differences, such as the one existing between City Hall and property owners who felt tax money was not being used wisely to maintain Downtown. Some elected officials felt the property owners were trying to take control over what is considered Santa Monica’s living room, continually reminding property owners that even though the promenade is not open to vehicle traffic it is still a public street, created and supported with a mixture of tax dollars and an assessment. Throughout the scores of public meetings on the subject, it has become clear that many feel something needs to be done to make Downtown competitive with places like The Grove, Old Town Pasadena, Hollywood & Highland Center and The Citadel Outlet. However, there is disagreement over how that should be done, with opponents of the proposed business improvement district saying the assessment formula needs to be reexamined. “We are all in favor of cleaning up Downtown, but this is just too large, too much money,” said Donna Alvarez, a long-time community activist and member of the board of directors for Santa Monica Christian Towers, an affordable, senior housing complex on Sixth Street between Wilshire Boulevard and Arizona Avenue. The board has voted against the assessment. If approved the Towers will pay roughly $5,000 a year in assessments. “We just feel all of this is essentially taking care of the promenade by getting others to pay for it,” added Alvarez, who is a member of a political action committee opposed to the assessment, Property Owners against PBAD, which created a Web site and recently circulated a flyer to garner support for a no vote. “To me the city is responsible for cleaning the streets, not my tenants. These are elderly people on fixed incomes.” Alvarez is also worried about the cost of services provided by her dentist and others located in Downtown. The trickle-down effect could force people to move out, and that includes merchants as well as residents. Supporters say everyone will benefit from a cleaner, safer environment that will increase property values while making streets more enjoyable for visitors and residents alike. Failing to do so could lead to a Downtown that is rundown, driving restaurants and retailers out, leading to boarded-up businesses and more crime. “We are all competing for the same customers, people choosing to come here over San Diego, San Francisco or Las Vegas, and we want to make sure they have a great experience here so they want to come back,” said Chris Jones, general manager of the Holiday Inn on Colorado Avenue at Second Street. The trust which owns the hotel has voted in favor of the assessment, agreeing to pay around $30,000 a year, a relatively small amount considering the hotel pays City Hall over $1 million a year in lodging taxes. “We looked at this carefully and we don’t want to vote for something just so that our taxes go up,” Jones said. “We want to see something for it, and we think we will with this program.” THE DETAILS Approved by the council in April, the plan would revamp the Bayside District Corp. board and the way it is chosen, giving property owners the power to appoint six members, the council six and the city manager one. The assessment would generate an additional $3.6 million to boost maintenance, enhance marketing efforts and create an ambassador program to inform visitors and help keep the streets safe. Under the proposed plan, assessments would be based on the property’s size, type of use and location in an expanded district divided into three zones — one comprised of the promenade, another along Second and Fourth streets and Ocean Avenue, and a third between Fifth and Seventh streets. A property on the promenade would pay the most at 76 cents a square foot per year, properties on neighboring Second and Fourth streets and Ocean Avenue would pay 34 cents, while those on Fifth and Seventh would pay 19 cents. Government buildings and non-profits would pay considerably less, the reasoning being that they are already providing services to the community and would not benefit in the same manner as others from a marketing campaign. Under the plan, the streets would reap benefits proportional to the assessments paid by their property owners, with those on the promenade paying the most while receiving the most services. RESPONSE This has angered some nonprofits, including the Santa Monica Family YMCA, which has voted against the assessment, sending a strongly-worded letter to the council detailing the “negative financial impact that will result” from the proposed assessment. Kathleen Rawson, executive director of the Bayside District Corp., which helps manage and maintain Downtown and was the driving force behind the creation of a new assessment district, said nonprofits must be included in the process under state law. She said she has tried to explain to nonprofits the benefits of paying more (after nonprofits balked at the original assessment formula, their contributions were reduced). She emphasized that nonprofits will not have to pay for a marketing campaign, but will have access to a rapid response maintenance team like everyone located in the district. Rawson also responded to claims by commercial property owners that they will see little to no benefit. Douglas Emmett Inc., which owns several large commercial and residential properties in Downtown, has come out against the assessment, the vote accounting for roughly 11 percent of the total, making them a major player in the election. A representative from Douglas Emmitt said the company believes improvements are needed, but questioned the amount Douglas Emmitt will have to pay, around $300,000 a year. “A well-funded (business improvement district) shows a significant positive impact on property values,” Rawson said.“A healthy, clean promenade is a big benefit and reflects positively on rents you can receive from office tenants. Having a vibrant Downtown with multiple options for lunch … with parking and great access, all those things are very important. … You get what you pay for.” Opponents have complained that the process was not as open as supporters would like the public to believe and feel that the assessment formula was drafted by property owners on the promenade who have the greatest to gain. Some said they were not aware of the vote and had not received their ballot because they moved to another location or were out of state. Supporters said the process has been very inclusive and Bayside has made many efforts to reach out to as many property owners as possible, sending out mailers, e-mails and making phone calls to spread the word. Scores of public meetings were held, including a hearing before the City Council. Local media outlets have also covered the issue. “The process was really good,” said Tod Lipka, executive director of Step Up on Second, a mental health provider that voted in support of the assessment. “There were focus groups held early on, nonprofits were called in for meetings ….” Lipka did argue for more homeless outreach as part of the ambassador program, hoping to create some synergy with outreach being done by service providers, City Hall and the police department, but that was not included in the plan to the extent he would have liked. That said, he still feels the assessment is a positive even though Step Up will have to do more fundraising to pay for the added expense if the assessment is approved. Rawson is confident the plan will receive the votes needed for approval, however, she believes it will be close. If it fails, it is her fear that the process, which has been grueling at times, will not start again for several years as there will be many who are too exhausted or frustrated to start again. The momentum is here now, she said, and property owners should not waste the opportunity to do something positive for Downtown, especially with the new Santa Monica Place scheduled for reopening in fall of 2009. “We are trying to get organized to implement this plan once the money starts flowing,” Rawson said. “We want to put the money to use as quickly as possible.” No matter what the vote ends up being, the one positive thing to come out of the entire process is healing, said Jennifer Hranilovich, a Bayside board member who has worked for land trusts and has experience with business improvement district. “I understand that there has been distrust before and I think we are moving in a positive direction,” she said. “I really hope it passes because it will give us continued opportunities to work on those relationships and build a better district.” Property owners would finally have more say on how their money is spent with a new board of directors, while the council will still maintain influence over Downtown, with the city manager providing the tie-breaker if necessary. A new board is evidence at how far property owners and public officials have come, Rawson said. “It has definitely been an interesting two years,” she said. “The process we have gone through has done a lot to mend fences between the public and private sector … with both realizing that they need each other in order to make success happen.” *Originally published in the Santa Monica Daily Press print edition on July 8, 2008.* [Read the original PDF.](https://s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/smdp%5Fbackissues/070808.pdf?ref=smdp.com)