Downtown Village PBID: Ruthless Designs, Grandiose Visions, Social Engineering—and Taxes

To the editor:

Everyone’s heard about the city’s downtown redevelopment plan, but I wonder how many know about its secretive plan to raise taxes on local businesses, churches and residential property owners?

Remember when the city tripled our parking fees, and started handing out expensive tickets at the drop of a hat? Naturally, we were outraged. But remember how the city told us to grin and bear it, because all these monies would be dedicated to a noble cause—namely, the upkeep of the soon-to-be-redeveloped Village?

Well, they won’t, and what we were told was a lie. Seems the money was spent somewhere else, and now—surprise, surprise!—the politicians say they need more.

Their new pitch is called a PBID (property-based business improvement district) and, for our politicos, it serves the dual purpose of both raising revenue—it is a form of taxation—and allowing them to indulge in a little social engineering.

Oh, sure, they’ve tried to sugarcoat it with a lot of self-serving blather about the need to form “partnerships” with relevant “stakeholders”—i.e., all those whose properties the redevelopment will supposedly benefit—but make no mistake about it: This is nothing but a city gambit to raise money and increase power.

The great French statesman Jean-Baptiste Colbert once wrote that “The art of Taxation consists in so plucking the goose as to get the most feathers with the least hissing.”

With the PBID, this was accomplished by stressing its ostensibly voluntary nature and the bounty it will invariably bestow on those who cooperate.

In theory, landlords can vote this thing up or down. In theory. But theory’s one thing and practice is another.

According to PBID rules, not all voters are created equal. All properties are to be “assessed” according to how much they will contribute to the city coffers; and since the assessment is based on physical dimensions, the largest properties in the PBID zone—La Mesa Lumber, Henry’s Market, the Vons shopping center and. of course, the city civic center itself—will all have wildly disproportionate influences over the PBID proceedings—so much, in fact, that the “votes” of the majority of smaller property owners count for virtually nothing—even in combination!

It’s safe to say that never in East County history has the fate of the many been so shamelessly placed in the hands of a few. So much for the “voluntary nature” of this tax! So much for the democratic process!

An obvious question arises. If this is such a bad deal, why would landowners—especially those who stand to pay the highest assessments!—vote to tax themselves? What’s in it for them?

Let me answer by posing another question. How many of you have ever remodeled a home or business here? If so, you know that it can be a trial. Seems like you spend as much time, energy and money on bureaucratic fees and red tape as you do on the construction itself.

And if you own a large commercial property, these obstacles (or the lack thereof) will depend greatly on your relationship with the city-—i.e., with Mayor Madrid.

A brief anecdote will illustrate my point. Two businesswomen I know remodeled their businesses. The first, who happens to be in the mayor’s good graces, told me that her negotiations with the Building Department would’ve been very difficult had it not been for the direct intervention of Art Madrid. But the second, whose relationship with the mayor has always been strained, could not—no matter how hard she tried!—satisfy the building inspectors.

A plumbing fixture that was one-quarter inch too far to the left had to be pulled out and moved to the right. And so it went—on, and on—a seemingly interminable process. She, unlike my other acquaintance, was held to the most rigorous letter of the building (code) law and, in process, lost significant time and money.

Stories like this are well-known; in fact, La Mesa’s famous for them. Say you own a big chunk of land in the vicinity of the village—say Vons, Henry’s or La Mesa Lumber—that is scheduled for redevelopment (and this is the plan for at least two of the aforementioned parcels). How do you streamline the process, and avail yourself of every “advantage” the city has to offer? Simple. You emulate the first lady I described, and do your best to placate the political powers that be.

So now we understand the motives of the property owners. But what about the city? What’s in it for them? Well, as I’ve said, their short-term goal is to merely relieve themselves of the fiscal responsibility of caring for the changes they are going to make to The Village. But, of course, there’s far more to it than that.

Deep down, every politician relishes the chance to play out their self-cast role as the enlightened leader who knows what’s best for the rest of us. Ours are no exception. They don’t like The Village as it stands. Just listen to two of our most deeply entrenched councilmen!

For years they’ve been talking about rooting-out the antique stores—the small and (to them) insufficiently glamorous mom and pop retailers. And Art Madrid is even less satisfied with our old-fashioned town. According to him, we should (and I quote) “be like the Gaslamp Quarter and Little Italy.”

Such ruthless designs, such grandiose visions! How on earth do they pull it off? Streets, sidewalks, lighting and shrubbery—these are the city’s proper province. But what legitimate effect can they hope to have on the actual businesses—on who stays, who goes and who fills the spaces left by those forced out.?

That’s where the PBID comes in.

Of course, the city should content itself with the purely public parts of the downtown redevelopment. But this must seem to them like putting a new Brooks Brothers suit on a transient—a nice external improvement, perhaps, but one that leaves the same unwashed man underneath.

Thus they have broadened their ambitions. After the “assessments” are made and the requisite tax (again, based on a combination of storefront lineal footage and total square footage is levied on each property), landlords will do exactly what one would expect: pass the costs along to their tenants in the form of increased rent. Not that this will have much effect on the city’s favored businesses—professional offices, bars restaurants and high-end retailers (especially those who own their own buildings).

But for the smaller, less lucrative ventures, for homeowners and churches, it will be devastating. Many will be forced to close or relocate. Exactly what the city wants.

The dream of our politicians—a Village remade in their own image—will be a nightmare for most of us. That is why it must be stopped. They have no right to build something that they cannot afford to maintain, and even less of a right to experiment with social engineering at our expense.

The Village belongs to the people, not the politicians. Please join us in the fight to save our town.

Craig Maxwell
Maxwell’s House of Books
La Mesa