Another Santa Ana Councilmember With Conflict - of - Influenza? - Navel Gazing

Blogs

« Newport Beach Wants More Wayne | Main | When a Conflict of Interest Isn't But Should Be: The Carlos Bustamante Story »

Another Santa Ana Councilmember With Conflict - of - Influenza?

Posted by Gustavo Arellano in Notes from the Banana Republic

January 4, 2008 9:27 PM

Permalink | Comments (9)

*Updated, with new info on the bottom...

Earlier, we discussed the developmental gerrymandering that seemingly allows SanTana mayor Miguel Pulido and councilmember Vince Sarmiento to vote on the city's Renaissance Specific Plan (RSP), the controversial project that seeks to "diversify" and "revitalize" SanTana's downtown. Now, the Weekly has learned that another councilmember might have a conflict of interest that would preclude him from voting on the RSP: David Benavides.

Say hola to PrimeUrban, a SanTana-based developer which keeps a cool brick building on Santa Ana Boulevard that also houses SolArt Gallery and, as its verbose self-description states, is "committed to acquiring, designing, building and marketing real estate assets that meet the demands of the urban market, profit our investment partners, and create a unique sense of place within the cities and neighborhoods we work." It owns two properties in the RSP zone--one near the SanTana Train Depot they want to turn into 140 residential units, and another on the northeast corner of Minter Street and Santa Ana Boulevard; they plan to turn the latter into Minter Court, a "a boutique residential community that is a unique vision of simple contemporary architecture." Construction for the latter is scheduled for this winter, pending city approval--and both plans are being developed with an eye toward complying with the RSP.

Where does Benavides fit in? On PrimeUrban's website, the developer proudly proclaims it's "committed to giving back to the communities in which it works" (we'd link to the passage, but PrimeUrban has one of those annoying sites that always keeps the same URL). One of the non-profits they list as supporting is KidWorks. Its board chairman? Benavides.

It's not known in what capacity does PrimeUrban support Kidworks, whether with money or via volunteer efforts. And SanTana conflict-of-interest rules are mum on councilmembers voting on projects where the principles have donated to an organization affiliated with a councilmember--but that's the same shit California State Assembly Speaker Fabian Nuñez pulls. We can't fault PrimeUrban for buttering up councilmembers, but we can fault Benavides if he votes on the Renaissance Plan. Even if it's not technically illegal, David, it sure doesn't look good voting on something that's going to greatly benefit your amigos.

*UPDATE: Turns out Benavides has god-honestly broken conflict-of-interest laws in the past. Hmm...

**Benavides' previous conflict of interest involved David DiRienzo, builder of the Santiago Lofts, which sit--where else?--in the RSP zone and are near PrimeUrban's proposed transit village. Perhaps Benavides likes the sound of choo-choos?

Comments (9)

Gustavo, Esq. says:
January 4, 2008 23:17

Here you go again. You have a passing familiarity with conflict of interest laws (fyi - read the 1990 California Political Reform Act and the FPPC Regulations and FPPC Opinions) and you've now maligned a councilperson, an incredible community organization and a developer with innuendo even though you, by your own admission, can't establish an actual conflict.

Do us a favor and bone up on conflicts of interest laws because your prior reporting in Placentia hasn't helped your feeble understading of conflicts.

Gustavo Arellano says:
January 4, 2008 23:40

Here you are again, the person who remained anonymous for so long and now creates a too-cute pseudonym (gracias for taking my advice, btw--maybe you can next identify yourself!). Where did I malign Kidworks? I merely reported what's there--hell, I even said SanTana conflict-of-interest rules don't say anything on the subject and neither does the state. Will PrimeUrban not benefit from the passage of the RSP? Doesn't PrimeUrban claim to "give back" to Kidworks? Isn't Benavides the chair of Kidworks? Puts my conflict-of-interest antennae up--but then again, maybe I'm too sensitive. Then again, no.

Debby says:
January 5, 2008 04:32

Who needs whitey holding you down when we have our own corrupt Mexican'ts..

KW Volunteer says:
January 5, 2008 10:56

Gustavo, we appreciate your care and commentary regarding the city of Santa Ana. I must say, however, that it was quite disheartening to read this particular commentary. As someone who is connected with Kidworks, I know personally that Kidworks is a different type of organization than say, a business. Kidworks is very strategic in how it uses its funds to effectively restore at-risks communities. Comparing this situation to the Fabian Nunez example is quite misleading. Please be careful not to tarnish the image of an organization that is home to people who are dedicating their lives to helping the families of our community.

Gustavo Arellano says:
January 5, 2008 11:05

For the record: I think Kidworks is a great organization--a friend of mine once worked there, and any non-profit that has Terry Donahue on board is fine by this fellow Bruin. And I don't have any problem with PrimeUrban supporting local organizations--that's what a good local business does. It does concern me, however, that because of PrimeUrban's generosity, Benavides might be more inclined to vote on the RSP and approve PrimeUrban's projects. That was the point of my post. As for the Nuñez comparison--perhaps a bit harsh, but that's the only comparison I could think of in regards to people trying to curry favors with elected officials through other means.

Gustavo, Esq. says:
January 5, 2008 11:42

Well, at least you've learned to back track a bit. Yes, Fabian directed contributors to give money to an an organization which had hired his wife(among other things). What Fabian did was legal and creates no conflict even though you may think it's shady (I'd agree). That's far different than what has allegedly transpired here.

I think businesses should give to local charities and organizations since they get the privilege of doing business in Santa Ana. Given that most local elected officials are involved on boards of various organizations, it only seems right and logical that they would ask their contacts to support solid organizations like KidWorks (we don't know if that is what happened here). You really can't expect elected officals to live in a hermetically sealed bubble. And, even if Mr. Benevides did solicit a contribution from PrimeUrban and PrimeUrban contributed, it does not mean that Mr. Benevides has a conflict; nor does it mean that he will vote in a way that benefits PrimeUrban.

It appears your larger point is to take money and its resultant influence out of politics. I'm sure the First Amendment will have something to say about that. I suggest you look at the Oaks Initiative which was ultimately adopted (after much litigation) in Santa Monica, Vista and Pasadena. It severely limits campaign contributrions and conflicts that arise therefrom.

Take a look http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/pr/?postId=4768&pageTitle=Nation's+Strongest+Conflict+of+Interest+Initiative+Upheld+By+Court+Against+Politicians'+Challenge

Gustavo, Esq. says:
January 5, 2008 12:44

By the way, I think the Oaks Initiative is a great way to up-end this mayor. You take money out of the local elections and you limit the mayor's ability to run a slate and obfuscate his failings. There would still be the 10K gorilla knows as the unions, but the field would be leveled somewhat.

Bottomline: you take the mayor's money and he'd have to run on ideas. He'd lose as would Bustamante (the king knucklehead) and Alvarez. You'd also free up the remaining councilmembers (especially Tinajero) to think independently of the mayor.

Gustavo Arellano says:
January 5, 2008 13:07

Esq.: Yes--businesses should give back--that's what's known as a good corporate neighbor. And elected officials should urge more businesses to give back to their communities--maybe even one with which they're affiliated. But the game changes when said business can benefit from a councilmember's vote, a councilmember affiliated with an organization to which the business contributed. We can't be so Pollyanish about people's motives--at least me. Otherwise, I'd be out of a job.

DB says:
January 6, 2008 09:44

Reading "Esq." comments about conflicts of interest is entertaining and a prime example that "Esq." most likely operates his/her day to day business with absolutely no concept of the meaning and intent of conflict of interest statutes. Hopefully, "Esq." is not really an Esq., aka attorney. Public officials are employees of the public. When a conflict of interest involves a direct conflict between a public official's current duties and responsibilities and any type of existing and/or profit/non-profit private interest, BEWARE...

A potential conflict of interest arises where a public official has private interests that could conflict with their official duties;

A perceived or apparent conflict of interest can exist where it could be perceived, or appears, that a public official's private interests could improperly influence the performance of their duties – whether or not this is in fact the case.

Tragically, public officials in the OC have been supposedly serving the public for many years with absolutely no understanding of conflict of interest laws....

Afterall, when the OC Sheriff's Department can retain the same attorney/law firm to represent it in ongoing state and federal litigation, while also representing the Roman Catholic Diocese of Orange, the LA Archdiocese and multiple public school districts simultaneously, without corrective action or enforcement for wrongdoing or an appearance of a conflict, then you can rest assured that NO ONE GIVES A RIP about conflict of interest laws in the OC... and correcting the conflicts would most likely HURT the pocket books of too many politically connected running the OC with one violation of the law after another!

Think about it... if one of your children were sexually abused by one of the sexual predators employed by the Diocese of Orange, would you feel confident that making a report to the OC Sheriff's Department would be treated with fair administration of justice, free of any and all obstructions of justice, etc., when the Diocese of Orange and OC Sheriff share the same attorney/law firm?

Financial conflicts of interest are also important; however, when the protections of children are compromised so the Diocese of Orange and the OC Sheriff's Department can escape violations of conflict of interest, perjury, obstructions of justice, and other violations of the law, children are placed at serious risk of future dangers.

Will corrective action take place? Absolutely not! The political advisor for the OC Sheriff and the OC District Attorney is a politically connected attorney, whose wife is the Public Affairs Counsel for the OC District Attorney!!! Hello people!!!! Face the facts.. we live in a corrupt, self-serving, apathetic, money hungrey, gossip-consumed and dangerous County for children, adults and employees to live in.

OC Weekly Insiders

Local food, music and news blasts
Free Stuff

Free Classifieds Los Angeles, CA

Personal of the Day

More Personals >>