Around the time the city's Independent Budget Analyst was wondering why bonuses were being paid out during an employee pay freeze last year, the president of the Southeastern Economic Development Corporation (SEDC) was requesting that SEDC transfer its affordable housing monitoring and enforcement functions to the San Diego Housing Commission.

According to Keyser Marston Associates, this request was related to the City of San Diego investigation of the business association involving former SEDC president Reese Jarrett. The Keyser Marston report for SEDC stated "On April 27, 2007, the Office of the City Attorney of the City of San Diego prepared an investigational report on SEDC citing poor project management, lack of project oversight, and possible favoritism of awarding affordable housing by SEDC and the developer, Carter Reese Associates (Carter Reese). The claims related to two housing projects, The Village at Euclid and Skyline Terrace, both built by Carter Reese. The Village at Euclid was completed in September 2000 and Skyline Terrace was completed in September 2002."

After a breakdown of activities at the two projects, the Keyser Marston report then states: "In November 2006, the President of SEDC recommended to the SEDC Board of Directors that the San Diego Housing Commission assume from SEDC all monitoring and enforcement of affordable housing responsibilities regarding both affordability and owner-occupancy restrictions for affordable housing developments."

This may all be in innocent fun, but when the president of a redevelopment agency is looking to shed any monitoring and enforcement functions, the smell-o-meter starts to perk up with interest.

When the president of a redevelopment agency (already a meeting place and watering hole for developers and associated consultant/moneychangers) wants to shed monitoring and enforcement responsibilities after another former agency president has any involvement in "poor project management, lack of project oversight, and possible favoritism", then the smell-o-meter starts to glow in the dark.

In any case, the request for SEDC to avoid responsibility to monitor and enforce affordable housing regulations, policies and guidelines must be seen as avoiding the ethical responsibility to properly care for the assets that SEDC managed for the people of San Diego.

While he may not be the most popular guy on the block, the City Attorney seems to have hit the target on this one.

Residents of Encanto and Lemon Grove living near that favorite of Carter Reese developments at the old gas holder site, take note.

Comments

jerome Aug. 30, 2008 @ 4:33 p.m.

OMG

what is wrong with you san diego residents....dont you even remember when NIXON said 'he was not a crook" she certainally has kept her pockets full at the tax payers expense......

0

a2zresource Aug. 31, 2008 @ 10:46 a.m.

Regarding #1

Most San Diego residents were blissfully unaware of SEDC's existence as a redevelopment agency being run as a private preserve of the newly enriched... mostly because its president of the last decade and a half wanted things that way.

Take a look at SEDC's minutes for the past two years, available online at sedcinc.com, which is NOT an official California government .gov website... I have yet to find a developer's proposal before SEDC's board in those minutes where a speaker IN OPPOSITION to any project is mentioned. All of the public comments were either anonymously in support or big-wig-named in support, such as "Bishop George D. McKinney" regarding a St. Stephen's proposal for 2 lots at the Valencia Business Park.

The thing that stands out here is that Carolyn Smith, SEDC's current-outgoing president, makes her contribution to the proponent's post-submission interview process known (from something as recent as the June 25, 2008 minutes at http://www.sedcinc.com/BOD_support/July08/July%2023,%202008%20Board%20of%20Directors.pdf): "Ms. Smith informed the [SEDC] Board that St. Stephen's was given another opportunity to revise their proposal during their interview. It should be noted that it is unusual for respondents to revise proposals after they are submitted and particularly during the interview phase."

I guess we can figure out why Ms. Smith wanted SEDC to transfer away its contract monitoring and enforcement functions: no crime was commited when nobody was looking!

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