• Story alerts
  • Letter to Editor
  • Pin it

David Kreitzer spoke during the public-comment portion of the November 30 San Diego City Council meeting to ask the council to review the sudden enforcement of an old ordinance that has affected the city-provided collection of trash at his Rancho Bernardo townhome residence, which is located on a private road.

Kreitzer says that his property is part of 87 townhome units built in 1971; 48 were built on a public street, and 39 on two short private drives. For the past 39 years, city trucks have entered the private roads and collected trash in the area, said Kreitzer. Now he has been informed that trash service will be stopped by the City because of a “hold-harmless” ordinance that was passed in 1986. (The ordinance was instituted to require that residents from the private roads agree not to hold the City responsible for any loss, damage, or legal liability related to the collection of trash in their area.)

“We knew nothing of this ordinance and none of the older members can remember it either,” said Kreitzer. According Kreitzer, the director of Environmental Services informed him via letter that properties developed before November 4, 1986, should have been informed through their developers that a hold-harmless agreement would be needed in order to continue to receive City-provided trash collection.

However, Kreitzer states that neither the City nor older residents in the neighborhood have any records of the mentioned agreement from 1986. “Those living on private roads throughout the city — including ours — pay the same taxes…as the 48 out [on the public street] but we will be denied a very fundamental service. We will also be denied…recycling,” he said.

Without the City’s services, Kreitzer says, the residents already have limited space around their townhouse and may be forced to use guest parking space to put in a dumpster. “I would like to see an effort [to] amend that ordinance, if it really exists,” added Kreitzer. “Amend it to allow people living on these private roads to go back and sign a [hold-]harmless agreement.”

  • Story alerts
  • Letter to Editor
  • Pin it

More from the web

Comments

BlueSouthPark Dec. 5, 2010 @ 8:39 p.m.

For anyone interested in seeing the City's Budget and Finance Committee documents and actions, see Item-3 from Nov 10 2010: http://docs.sandiego.gov/ccaction_budgetfinance/Budget%252011-10-10_Actions.pdf

The report, dated Nov 1 2010, is here: http://docs.sandiego.gov/councilcomm_agendas_attach/2010/Budget_101110_3a.pdf

0

Founder Dec. 6, 2010 @ 7:50 a.m.

I expect to see lots more of these situations exposed as the City starts to ID all the tiny things that it can do to save a buck by ruining our Quality of Life!

RB citizens are now starting to feel the prick of the fiscal needle that has been poking all those in MidCity now for quite a while since the City has reduced it's infrastructure and other repairs demanded by SD's much older neighborhoods; I wonder what folks in RB would say if the City turned off their street lights until their streets were illuminated poorly like many of those in MidCity?

Every time we hear about something this, we all should shout, "What about the Pension Debacle" and demand to know what our Leaders are doing about it, since that directly affects their own pocket book and future retirement!

San Diego is being split into the haves and the have nots and our Leaders are making sure they all have plenty for themselves and their friends... SD voters are now being "pitted" against each other for City Services and that garbage is the result of our poor Leadership!

Who voted for that?

0

BlueSouthPark Dec. 6, 2010 @ 8:31 a.m.

Right, Founder. Privatization has been going on for several years in the MidCity-Downtown areas, in many ways, including the TMD. Privatization started really expanding in 2006, with the hiring of William Anderson (who was working for a company named Economic Research Associates) to direct CPCI; the heart of the privatization scheme rests within the Economic Development division in CPCI and in the BID Council. The business associations in MidCity have been allowed to move from taking/controlling assessments on businesses to taking/controlling assessments on properties within and beyond the business districts, in a completely illegal subversion of state law. Much of the thrust to assess people on their property tax bills and to give the money to the business associations/nonprofits came from a push by Marco LiMandri and Ben Hueso (neither of whom care much about the law!. LiMandri still has great influence. Have you followed the fight over the porta-potties downtown? The Little Italy maintenance assessment district, controlled by LiMandri, happily took on all maintenance costs for the loos purchased by CCDC, whereas the PBID assessment district is fighting that...because it is not legal. It's a mess. If you want to see what I mean about the porta-potties fight, watch the July 20 archived Council video, Item 332. Emerald and Hueso put on a show of contempt for and ignorance of the law.

0

Founder Dec. 6, 2010 @ 4:14 p.m.

Once the BID's realized that they can "earn" the 20 to 30% of the administration fees that the City Park & Rec. is charging to administer the MAD's they want all the MAD money they can get a hold of!

North Park Main Street (NP's BID) is now currently seeking to have everyone within it's Boundaries pay into another Business Assessment District (BAD) which they are calling a "Community" something or other. This will only shift the problems into the nearby neighborhoods causing additional Blight!

0

a2zresource Dec. 6, 2010 @ 3:55 p.m.

Interesting google search of sdreader.com site for "LiMandri" produces:

http://media.sdreader.com/pdf/kessler-suit.pdf

http://media.sdreader.com/pdf/kessler-sd-follow-up-report.pdf

LiMandri also figures heavily in articles and blog posts regarding the mayor's recent deposition in the KESSLER v. CITY OF SAN DIEGO matter... in fact, it's time for a blog post to catch everybody up on case status...

0

SurfPuppy619 Dec. 6, 2010 @ 9:52 p.m.

That FBI/police report is very damning.

The complaint looks very strong also.

0

BlueSouthPark Dec. 6, 2010 @ 4:32 p.m.

Founder, if the new NP assessment plan is called a "Community Benefit District," that's LiMandri's hallmark name of choice for assessing property owners and turning the money over to a business group, preferably one he controls. Here is LiMandri's idea of how it all should work: http://newcityamerica.com/downloads/DIX0120106reprint.pdf LiMandri says, "We [meaning he, and his company with the scary name New City America] need to manage residential downtowns in totality just like a mall management company would manage a mall. Dogs, parking, schools, everything."

Welcome to your neighborhood LiMandri mallworld!

0

SurfPuppy619 Dec. 6, 2010 @ 4:47 p.m.

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

0

Founder Dec. 7, 2010 @ 9:54 a.m.

The biggest problem with MAD's is that the makeup of the Board that controls the money. Far too often it is skewed toward Business and once in power a special interest fraction is very hard to get "out" of power!

Because the makeup of the Board is often the last thing to be decided, the control of the money which is most critical if the MAD is to be successful is glossed over and that leads to much of the money being spent on special interest projects that if listed at the beginning would have kept the MAD from being approved.

Beware wording and or promises like: We have to build in extra capacity for the future. We need to be flexible in our wording when describing projects to be done. The amount of yearly assessments should reflect our goals This will increase everyones future Property values

The best solution is to keep these MAD's as small as possible, controlled by those that will get 100% of the benefit and have the Board elected by "sub districts" of the area which insure one tiny group of voters will not get the majority of the benefits! Self management is possible if the majority of those voting approve of it and it will same the MAD many times the cost of establishing its own 501 c. 3 Corp to administer it, instead of allowing the City Dept. Of Park & Rec. to do it and also have them suck up 15-30% of the total amount collected!

0

Sign in to comment

Join our
newsletter list

Enter to win $25 at Broken Yolk Cafe

Each newsletter subscription
means another chance to win!

Close