Comments by HonestGovernment

Opera operative advised no discussion of fat checks

Others worry about getting paid: lawsuit reportedly filed by opera singers: http://www.cbs8.com/story/25257241/singers-file... Also, people making moves to become the new SD Opera? On April 14, 2014, there was a new California State business filing named "San Diego City Opera." http://www.sandiegoreader.com/users/photos/2014...
— April 20, 2014 10:12 a.m.

Toni Atkins pulls Community Benefit District legislation

I don't believe Toni Atkins is telling the whole truth. She must have other reasons for abandoning this fifth attempt (first four by Vargas) at finding a legal way to create new assessment districts. After all, in 2011, the North Park Main Street BID very much wanted to turn their BID into a PBID (the failed North Park Overlay MAD). There was little concern about ceding real control to the few property owners that the BID would have had to allow on their management board, in exchange for a big wad of money. The bill Atkins has pulled created a PBID-MAD blend. You can call it what you like (and Li Mandri DID commercialize the CBD term), but a Community Benefit District is a PBID-MAD blend that has no current State law to authorize it. Atkins was trying to fix that for Li Mandri, the creator of illegal "commercial MADs," which is what San Diego government creatively called them before one was ruled illegal (Li Mandri's creation in Golden Hill). Another Li Mandri creation, the in-limbo illegal Barrio Logan commercial MAD, is called a Community Benefit MAD. The Atkins/Vargas/Li Mandri CBD bill, like a legal PBID, gave financial control to a paid third-party entity (typically business groups), yet allowed residential and commercial property assessments, like a legal MAD, to use for a very broad number of purposes not allowed by MAD laws. Or by PBID law, even though the Downtown PBID spends monies on many disallowed activities. We don't have a City Atty to stop them. Since Atkins was first elected to council, she's been involved in attempts to pervert the only two State assessment laws: The 1994 PBID law, for assessing property owners and business owners, and the Landscape & Lighting Act (1972)/ Article XIIID of the California Constitution (Proposition 218), for MADs, which assess only property owners. Some charter cities have created ordinances for allowing CBDs. I suspect that is the next thing for San Diego. Gloria would be the main Council booster. Faulconer is receptive and has people on his transition committee who to plan push him to support CBD ordinances. Related news (??) is that the Planning, Neighborhood, and Economic Development Dept has revised their 2014-2016 strategy that included converting the City's BIDs to PBIDs. They struck that text entirely. See the doc on the 4/09/2014 agenda for the Economic Development and Intergovernmental Relations Committee. Stay tuned. http://www.sandiegoreader.com/users/photos/2014...
— April 8, 2014 2:24 p.m.