PRI representatives deny allegations of participating in retaliatory practices and say they have tried to be fair in considering both new and previous vending cart operators in their program.
Meanwhile, current vending cart operators have been granted a request to extend their business on the Promenade for the next few weeks until PRI takes over management duties, which it’s hoping to do by the Thanksgiving holiday weekend. Current cart operators were originally supposed to be off the Promenade by Nov. 13.
In June, PRI was awarded a minimal 10-year contract to replace Promenade Services Inc., the group that had managed the Promenade’s mobile cart operations since 1989. City officials and the Bayside District Corp. — a nonprofit group of business leaders who help manage downtown along with City Hall — felt it was time to explore new vendors who could present better concepts or approaches that would make it more profitable for the Promenade.
The agreement calls for PRI to provide 17 retail carts, five food carts, a cart for concierge services, and three carts for artists. PRI, which owns the carts, has the discretion to choose which operators it will use, according to Miriam Mack, the city’s economic development manager. PRI has offered eight of 16 current cart operators a chance to sign on, three of whom have rejected the offer, according to city staff. All of the slots have been filled.
Under the new program, cart operators will pay significantly higher rents and will be required to make substantial improvements to the carts they rent from PRI. City Hall is expected to bring in a minimum of $187,000 annually in the new program. However, it could be more, based on a percentage of operators’ sales.
Current vending cart operators who disagree with aspects of the new program are being represented by an attorney Tracy Green, who has provided City Hall with several documents that build her clients’ case and describes the action they would like City Hall to take address their grievances.
The documents include sworn testimony from three current vending cart operators who allege PRI retaliated against them for speaking out against the new program.
Green said at the Nov. 8 City Council meeting that it’s not her clients’ intent to sue City Hall. However, in a letter addressed to representatives at City Hall, Green asked that officials tell PRI to reconsider her clients’ applications to take part in the new program. In addition, they should be allowed to continue through the holiday season which, according to the letter, would give PRI “time to comply with its contract requirements in good faith.”
CART OPERATORS TESTIMONY Daniel Ganon, who sells sunglasses on two carts called the “Red Line,” alleges that PRI invited him to participate in the program but withdrew his application when the firm realized he was listed as an attendee at an August meeting seeking clarification about the new program with city staff.
According to his testimony, Ganon, headed on a trip to Israel, authorized cart operators to represent his interests during the meeting with city staff. He returned from Israel on Aug. 25 and followed up with Deborah S. Kravitz, PRI’s co-owner, to check on the status of his application, which he sent prior to his departure. According to Ganon, Kravitz questioned Ganon as to whether he had attended the meeting, which he replied that he had not. Kravitz then asked Ganon why his name was on the list of attendees. Ganon explained he had asked to be represented at the meeting by the cart operators, according to his testimony. Apparently, City Hall’s economic development manager, Miriam Mack, requested the list and, according to cart operators, forwarded it Kravitz. The list is public record.
According to his testimony, Ganon was not rejected from the new program until he spoke out about it at a Sept. 13 City Council meeting. At approximately 12:30 p.m. on Sept. 23, Ganon said he decided after much trepidation to call Kravitz to confirm his place in the new program, since that day was the deadline to participate. According to his testimony, Kravitz told him “not to bother” because, “You are out. You are done. I’m tired of you guys going behind my back to the City Council.”
Doron Meidan, who sells perfume on a cart called “Scents of Style” and beach toys from “Pacific Atmosphere,” alleges in his testimony how he was rejected from the new program because of his participation in the August meeting with city staff.
Maya Lieberman, who sells custom-designed and hand-made bags, wallets and belts on a cart called “Treasure Dream,” alleges in her testimony that “in no time was I afforded anything remotely approaching preference in the process of applying to remain a part of the Promenade cart program. At no time did Ms. Kravitz even bother to meet me in person or to visit at the cart to see my merchandise.” Lieberman explains in her testimony about the repeated attempts she made to contact Kravitz, which were not expeditiously returned.
According to Lieberman’s testimony, Kravitz finally left her a voice mail message explaining how she would not be available for several days. Lieberman said she received the message within 10 minutes after it was left on her cell phone. Lieberman called Kravitz back, who told her, “I was supposed to listen to the voice mail she had left me and not to call her on her cell phone, and then she hung up.”
PRI DENIES ALLEGATIONS Kravitz said it was not PRI’s intent to appear retaliatory. She said she has tried to be fair in considering both new and previous operators.
“There was certainly no retaliatory intent on our part whatsoever,” Kravitz said. “We’ve been doing cart leasing and management for years and we wouldn’t have been successful in our capacity as a consulting firm if we didn’t have skill in negotiating with tenants.
“The posturing seems to have been done because the tenants want to stay in the current situation.”
She also pointed out that PRI has missed financial opportunities because the program has been delayed by City Hall.
Overall, Kravitz said she and her employees — mostly women — are excited about their opportunity to work on the Promenade. However, Kravitz said cart operators have threatened and harassed one of her employees. The employee filed a police report, she said.
Kravitz said PRI answered City Hall’s request for proposal, which was unanimously approved by the City Council. She added that current merchants were well aware of the fact that the operation was changing hands.
In the past, merchants complained because an operator could have multiple carts on the Promenade. Under the new system, operators will only be allowed to have one cart, so “everyone can have a piece of the pie,” Kravitz said.
The new carts are intended to be a more attractive addition to the Promenade, Kravitz said. PRI also has hired a merchandising expert who will see to it the wares for sale at each cart are distinct from one another and nearby shops.
Such moves will likely increase revenue for the cart operators, Kravitz said.
Kravitz said she is confident the new program will be well-regarded on the Promenade once operations begin.
“The proof will be in the pudding,” she said.
REACTIONS MIXED AT CITY HALL City Attorney Marsha Moutrie, whose office is leading the probe, described the allegations against PRI, and perhaps City Hall, as “less than crystal clear.”
Moutrie told the City Council on Tuesday that the vagueness of City Hall’s contract with PRI made it difficult to determine whether the firm exercised “preference” toward current vending cart operators when selecting participants into its new program.
Moutrie said suggestions that City Hall might have acted in complicity with PRI to weed out current operators that the firm didn’t want don’t appear valid.
Councilman Kevin McKeown pointed out that even if Mack provided a list of attendees to the August meeting and forwarded it on to Kravitz — who then used it maliciously — such a move didn’t necessarily make City Hall culpable. “(Mack) might have passed it on thinking Kravitz would use the list to address cart operator concerns,” McKeown said.
Moutrie said it was difficult to know whether PRI had acted in retaliation to cart operators without gathering testimony from Kravitz and other PRI representatives.
To do so would require legal permission, Moutrie said. However, seeking such testimony would be an effort worth pursuing, according to members of the City Council, who approved the city attorney’s office seeking such a request.
“My gut tells me something is wrong here,” Councilman Ken Genser said.
Genser suggested that if City Hall were to buy out PRI’s contract and run the program, it could do it in a manner similar to how it runs the vending cart program on the Santa Monica Pier. In that program, vending cart programs work individually with city staff and the attrition is much less, Genser said.
Other members of the council, although willing to continue the investigation, said other motivations may have to be explored during the probe.
Councilman Bob Holbrook said the posturing of the current vending cart operators on the Promenade seems to have changed over the course of the debate.
“My first impression was that the new program was going to be too expensive for the cart operators,” Holbrook said. “Then we heard testimony from staff the costs associated with the new program are in fact standard throughout Southern California. Then we heard that some of the carts weren’t selected, and that was unacceptable (because the cart operators were retaliated against). Then we heard from the City Attorney that she can’t be absolutely certain there was retaliation.
“When you see smoke, you suspect there’s a fire.” Holbrook said he prefers to see how PRI fares with the new program rather than City Hall buying out the contract and running it, a move which he thinks would be too costly and inappropriate.
“It would cost hundreds of thousands of dollars and I don’t think it’s the kind of business the city should be in,” Holbrook said. “Personally, I think it should be left to the private sector.
“Leasing from the city doesn’t mean you will lease from it forever.”
Originally published in the Santa Monica Daily Press print edition on November 12, 2005. Read the original PDF.