Today, a chingo of SanTana residents met at State Senator Lou Correa's office to discuss the Renaissance Specific Plan, which seeks to transform the city's downtown in a good (according to proponents) or gentrifying-Mexicans-outta-there (says opponents) way. I'm sure the other SanTana blogs--specifically Sean Mill at The Liberal OC and the Orange Juice! gang--will have something to say, but here's something for everyone to ponder in the meanwhile: what's with the weird blob in the bottom middle of the proposed area as shown in this included map?
The bottom boundary coming from the east is mostly First Street but then does a strange jag through lots up until a small stretch of Fourth Street. It do-si-dos around two buildings before going back on Third, hangs a left on Bush Street, then finally continues on First. The businesses inside the blob (that is, outside the boundaries of the Renaissance Plan) seem to be exactly the opposite of what SanTana planners want for their downtown--mostly auto repair shops, a Mexican dance hall, and a big, ugly shopping plaza with McDonald's and Taco Bell as the main tenants. Yet the Renaissance Blob ensures they'll be excluded from any plans or new regulations.
Why the exception? As always in SanTana politics, look to the conflict of interests involved in any decision. In this case, look at mayor Miguel Pulido and councilmember Vince Sarmiento.
Sarmiento's family has run Festival Hall at 220 E. Third Street for years. It attracts the type of crowd city planners abhor--Mexicans looking to dance. In 2001, Sarmiento helped broker a deal with the city in which Festival Hall agreed to soundproof itself in return for agreeing not to sue the city for allowing the building of lofts next door and across the street. Those lofts are also part of the Renaissance Blob.
Pulido's family, meanwhile, owns Ace Muffler & Brakes on 401 E. First Street. For years, it stood as a testament to the power of pissed-off little people. In the mid-1980s, Santa Ana officials tried to tear down Ace Muffler as part of a redevelopment plan. The Pulidos sued and won, and the developer erected their shopping plaza around the muffler shop. Miguel used that battle to catapult himself onto the SanTana City Council in 1986, and used the continuing goodwill to become mayor in 1994, where he remains. Ace Muffler is also part of the Renaissance Blob.
I'm not sure who determined the boundaries for the Renaissance Plan, but doesn't the Blob rather conveniently exclude Festival Hall and Ace Muffler from the coming redevelopment? So, Pulido and Sarmiento: put your properties where your mouths are. Miguel: you told the Orange County Register back in October that the Renaissance Plan "is a big change, a positive change." Same with you, Vincent: you fought hard and admirably to ensure Festival Hall survived--will you do the same for the residents and businesses the Renaissance Plan seeks to remove? If ustedes like the Renaissance Plan so much, why not remove your properties from the Renaissance Blob and include them in the plan? Leave your justifications below--SanTana residents and lovers of transparent governance await your response!
December 28, 2007 14:35
Gustavo,
It is funny that you bring the "blob" up because it was the very first question I asked when the plan was presented to the Planning Commission.
I was told that the reason that those properties were left out was so that Vince and Miguel would be able to vote of the plan. If they were included they would have to recuse themselves.
As you know I am a Planning Commissioner for the city of Santa Ana so I will not be doing much blogging about the Renaissance Plan before we actually vote on it. I feel that I need to keep an open mind on the issue and should refrain from taking a position publicly before than plan is completely presented to my fellow commissioners and I.
That being said, I have been a long time opponent of the gentrification of Santa Ana. The Artists Village was nothing more than a gentrification plan put together by Anglos and other elitests wanting to run Latino's, specifically immigrants, out of the downtown area. You can rest assure that I will not sit quietly by and allow more gentrification to occur.
December 28, 2007 14:58
You fight the good fight, Sean, so when you blog, you blog. As for the excuse given: doesn't California conflict of interest law prohibit politicians from voting on a project if they have a vested interest within 500 feet of said project? I I dinged a Placentia councilmember on that a couple of years ago.
December 28, 2007 20:23
Is this the same Sean Mill who proudly boasts about blogging about Ware Disposal even though Michelle Martinez told him not to, something Sean repeats again and again? And now he suddenly wants to be mum?
December 28, 2007 21:39
FU@&%$! The Hapless Mayor! Pinchi buey bueno pa'nada...
December 28, 2007 23:29
Dear Anon,
Michele Martinez never told me not to blog about Ware Disposal and I have never said that she did. She did however get angry after I did expose Ware's violations in the blogosphere. Please get your facts straight before you try and take a swipe at me.
December 28, 2007 23:33
The originals plans show that property bolb being broke up with the prior roads being recovered to return it back to the original grid.
And yes there is a 500 foot rule too.
So those two will not be able to vote on this plan.
And there should be a look see to see if the north boundary was adjusted also.
Looking at the site aerial it look like the north boundary was moved south at the Ebelle club. I would have to get out a tape measure to see if that adjustment was done to keep another council member out side of the 500 feet rule.
If 3 of the 7 are in conflict, how many of the remaining 4 are needed to vote “yea“ for the RSP to pass?
And there is a loop hole that allows those who have a conflict to vote if it is required for the government to go forward.
IT does look bad for those voting to except themselves from the rules they will apply to others.
December 29, 2007 08:54
Gustavo:
Could you please tell us what consitutes a "vested interest"? I think the answer may lie in the California Political Reform Act of 1990 and/or the FPPC Regulations.
Do you know if Vince or Miguel have a "vested interest" in the businesses as you suggest?
I'm sure the City Attorney opined on this matter. You could make a public records act request for this inforation for the memo that the City Attorney wrote on this exact topic.
December 29, 2007 09:14
Gustavo,
Michele Martinez gave Sean Mill a file of information on Ware Disposal - so he could give it to Joe Andrade, an activist resident in Logan Park. Mill did NOT give it to Andrade. He blogged the information instead. He admitted, in writing, that he was attacking Ware because they funded attacks on Councilman Sal Tinajero last year during his council campaign.
Michele was upset because that information was part of an active city case against Ware. It was not supposed to be public yet. I think she had a right to be upset.
What undermines' Mill in this case is his admission that he wrote his article in order to get back at Ware for purely political reasons. If he did it because it was the right thing to do, that would be a wholly different matter.
The fact is, the Council has allowed Ware to do their thing because they give a ton of money to Pulido and his cabal. And Tinajero is now part of that cabal. He has NEVER voted against any of Pulido's schemes, ever. He is no part of the revolution in my city.
Martinez, on the other hand, is the ONLY Council Member opposing the Renaissance Plan. And she is the ONLY Council Member who wants to put ALL the Council meetings on T.V. She is the ONLY hope for change on our City Council. So of course Tinajero hates her - and he has asked Mill to keep attacking her.
That is very sad. Mill was once part of the force for change in my city. Now he is just another commissioner trying to hang on to power. Boy was he upset when I quit the Housing and Redevelopment Commission. By quitting I made it clear that change in our city is not about appointments. We will realize change only when we toss the bums out!
Thank you Gustavo for all of your fine work regarding the Renaissance Plan. Let's not let Pulido and company get away with this corruption!
Que viva la revolucion!
December 29, 2007 09:28
Let's be clear about one thing regarding the RSP as juxtaposed to past redevelopment: NO BUSINESS WILL BE DISPLACED UNDER THE RSP.
Many businesses that are currently operating will become legal non-conforming uses which means these business cannot expand. Given the amount of dirty and heavy industry in the RSP, this is not a bad thing.
And, I think we should finger Sean's "mole"....it was none other than Jay Trevino (Planning Director) that said Festival Hall and the Muffler Shop needed to be removed from the RSP so Vince and the Mayor could vote on it.
From my vantage point, our mayor and all the members of our council should be able to vote on this plan given it's incredible impact on the area.
December 29, 2007 11:08
Anon 8:54: I'm not the one who redrew the boundaries, nor am I the city official who told Sean Mill the reason for that. Supposedly, it's conflict of interest. Can you explain the blob?
Art: Gracias for the nice words and the link, but I'll leave the feuding between you and Sean!
Anon 9:28: We appreciate original thought on Navel Gazing, not regurgitating of the same anonymous (coward) comment elsewhere. That said, given your final point--I take it you don't give a shit about conflict-of-interest laws?
December 29, 2007 13:16
I do give a shit about conflict of interest, but you apparently aren't familar with the laws that codify the conflict. You use the term "vested interest" as if it's some term of art, but when you are pressed to define what that is, you fail to respond.
If Miguel owns 3% of the business, is he precluded from voting on the RSP. Do you even know if the mayor has any financial interest in the business?
Given that these business were intentionally left out of the RSP, do you not think the conflict is a non-issue? If the businesses had been left in the plan, the few gadflys that follw SA politics would be up in arms if Miguel or Vince had voted on it. Given that these two elected are representing the citizens of SA, I'd like them to have a say in one of the most important specific plans to come before our city.
December 29, 2007 13:32
Not familiar? I covered a story in Placentia a couple of years ago eerily similar to what's happening in SanTana (read the link above). I think I'm pretty well-versed in conflict-of-interest law, but I'm open to other views. Here's what's indisputable, though: Last year, that blob didn't exist; now, it does. Ace Muffler and Festival Hall were NOT intentionally left of the Renaissance Plan; it happened later. Ever heard of gerrymandering? Sure seems like it to me, except in this case the boundary changes seem to allow Pulido and Sarmiento the right to vote when they previously couldn't. And how is that a non-issue?
December 29, 2007 13:48
It's a non-issue as it relates to conflict of interest. These properties are not part of the plan boundaries.
Perhaps you don't think a plan of this importance necessitates the full consideration of the Council and Mayor; I think otherwise. So, what then is the problem with the boundary change if it allows more participation of our elected officials? The RSP will change a 100 times before it is adopted (if it is adopted). After all, this is a long range plan that provides a vision, not an etched in stone blue print.
And, I'm not sure how gerrymandering fits into this equation other than gerrymandering produces some pretty oddly shaped poltical districts for the state assembly and senate. I'd surmise that with gerrymandered districts there are no conflicts of interest (as that term is defined under the Political Reform Act of 1990 or the FFPC regs that interpret the PRA) because if there were, we'd have lawsuits by indpendents and Green Party candidates (Republicans are complicit in the gerrymandering).
December 29, 2007 20:34
Anon.13:16,
The mayor and city attorney seem to think he has a vested interest in the muffler shop. In the past, in votes related to Downtown he has systematically reclused himself, citing his association in the shop and how that is a conflict. This is on record.
December 30, 2007 11:40
It's sad that so many people see the Renaissance Plan as a 'Kick the Mexicans out so we can move yuppie's into Santa Ana" plan.
So smug and self-righteous some are with their Pro-Mexican crusade when they are blind to see that Santa Ana is in dire need of attracting high-income residents to help build a stronger infrastructure for all residents to benefit from.
Or does it make you proud that the average household income in Santa Ana is sitting at a staggering $43,000.
Do you honestly think that if the Hispanic population drops down from 80% to 60% that your "Race-War" will be lost?
If anything, those who speak anti-Renaissance rhetoric are the one's who are unfairly playing the race card. Their refusal to help diversify the city is the mentality that helped Santa Ana plunge into the crap-hole it is now.
Why fear positive change?
Or does living in a gang-infested city with school drop-out rates through the roof make you proud?
December 30, 2007 13:14
Just the Facts: Here are the facts: time and time again, SanTana officials have used the code words of "diversity" and "change" to enrich themselves and screw over the city's poor (usually Mexican), almost always to spectacular failure and at the taxpayer's expense. But you don't have to believe me--just swing by Ace Muffler and the Logan barrio for proof. That's why whenever officials talk about change, many residents get freaked out. I don't know of which "Race War" you speak of, but what I mention in my post is some pretty suspicious RE-drawn boundaries that seem to indicate political shenanigans--just the facts.
December 30, 2007 14:01
GA:
I've lived in Santa Ana my whole life and I am not quite sure you are correct that the city has used the code words of diversity and change to enrich certain individuals. Care to explain? Are you against diversifying this City's economic base?
I'm no fan of the mayor. I think he has far to to much power and controls the donor base of developers and unions. But, how has the mayor personally enriched himself at taxpayer expense. I hear many people make such claims, but I've seen no proof of it.
December 30, 2007 14:53
Anon 14:01 (make up nicknames, people! Go ahead and be cowardly in not identifying yourself, but at least be funny about it!): Talk to the folks in Fourth Street, Logan Barrio, Ace Muffler and other such fighters in SanTana's neighborhood wars for your explanation of diversity (you even used the word!). Also worthy of reading are the works of Lisbeth Haas. For Pulido richening himself, investigate his dealings with Harrah, Kakkar, et al. And then look at the Renaissance Plan map.
As for your question: I'm for letting the free market decide what makes a city's economic base, not city planners. I personally think there are too many quinceañera shops on Fourth Street like so many proponents of the Renaissance Plan, but they're there for a reason--they make money, and the landlords like that money. If the landlords wanted someone else, it should be their choice, not the city's. I think American Apparel on Second and Broadway is really cool, yet it always looks empty when I pass by--the market for it just isn't there. If it happens, it happens, but it shouldn't come via city fiat or prodding.
December 30, 2007 21:01
Well, I somewhat agree with your comments, but it's a little too libertarian for my taste.
In any event, you still haven't provided any evidence that the mayor has enriched himself at taxpayers' expense. I only bring this up b/c I always here this refrain about the mayor, but simply referring to "Harrah, Kakkar, et al." is far from evidence. I'm sure a lot of people would like to assume the mayor has benefited at taxpayer expense, but that isn't enough.
Finally, as a previous poster noted, the mayor's family's muffler shop is no longer in the RSP. If it were, he'd likely not be able to vote on the RSP. I'd rather have as much participation by our electeds on a plan of this importance, wouldn't you?
December 30, 2007 21:48
I can't hold your hand toward every conclusion--dig, Anon, dig! It's all there--those cases I cited really aren't that hard to find. If you're not happy with that, tough tamales. And I'd rather have city initiatives that don't involve jury-rigging boundaries to allow officials to vote, but that's just me.
December 31, 2007 06:33
Gustavo,
I remember your work with the Placentia City Council's attempt to transfer the property of working class Latinos to developers using eminent domain. There were a lot of elements in the Placentia issue that turned out to be potentially criminal (viz. the indictments of city officials) - but at the beginning it was about the loathsome use of eminent domain.
Is the Santa Ana City Council talking about using eminent domain to acquire the properties for this redevelopment plan? If so, then any discussion of there being "free market" forces behind this redevelopment plan is an insulting lie.
If they are going with eminent domain, that is the first problem with Renaissance Plan.
Pulido and Sarmiento, if there is a real conflict of interest, have absolutely no chance of hiding their conflict as this plan moves forward. This isn’t the 1990s – we have ravenous masses of bloggers and flocks of investigative journalists to shine light on the attempts to steal people’s property using eminent domain.
OrangeCountyLatino.us
December 31, 2007 08:43
I dig. You now cite references to names (e.g. Harrah) and repackage them as "cases" as if that lends some sort of evidentiary heft. There is definitely some innuendo and suspicion on your part, but little else (so far).
I'd love it if you'd put your journalistic talents to work to take Pulido down much the way R. Scott Moxley did with Carona.
December 31, 2007 09:47
OC Latino: There are no plans to use eminent domain--at least that's what the city planners say right nown.
Anon (get a nickname!): What do you think this blog post was about--celebrating the wonders of Pulido? And for someone who claims they've lived in SanTana their entire life, you sure don't know your history. We at OC Weekly expect readers to come with at least a bit of past knowledge to the table. Better yet, just keep tuning in...
December 31, 2007 10:08
Well, I'll be waiting and hoping to see if you can produce something against Pulido other than innuendo.
December 31, 2007 14:46
To add something that is a little productive, like trying to find solutions, a good friend of mine who is a planner, sent these suggestions to me on how the Renaissance Plan could be modified to not screw over so many of those with industrial businesses already in that area while also helping Logan excel with the rest of the surrounding neighborhoods, instead of being dragged down with industrial next door to single family homes.
1. Allow Industrial/M-zones east of Garfield Street and Lacy Street ; south of Civic Center Drive and Stafford Street ; west of the 5 Freeway, Eastwood Avenue , and Hathaway Street ; and north of 1st Street ; to retain their underlying M-zoning.
2. Apply the Renaissance Plan’s proposed zoning on the area described in suggestion 2 as an overlay zone in which the property owner has the option to utilize the entitlements that are provided in the Renaissance Plan’s proposed zoning instead of being forced to lose their M-zone entitlements.
3. Allow M-zoned properties in the area described in suggestion 2 to have the option to easily change their underlying M-zoning to the zoning of what is being proposed by the Renaissance Plan.
4. Change the Residential/R-zoned properties in the area described in suggestion 2 to have the Renaissance Plan’s proposed zoning as the underlying zoning. This would actually give more entitlements to the R-zoned property owners than what they have now.
5. Change the proposed zoning from R/I – Residential/Industrial to UN-2 – Urban Neighborhood 2 in the Logan Neighborhood, north of Stafford Street . The UN-2 zoning is being proposed for the properties west and southwest of the Logan The UN-2 would also allow the Logan neighborhood to be recognized as a primarily residential neighborhood again while still allowing entitlements for a variety of non-residential uses that are more accommodating to a better quality of life for the residents of the Logan neighborhood.
December 31, 2007 15:21
First off, I'd like to commend folks for posting over the New Year's Day weekend--shows ustedes have as much of a life as I do. Lastly, por favor continue the conversation over here--this post has mucho comments, the other one feels lonely :-(.
January 2, 2008 17:33
Annonymouus with the planner friend. The ideas you present sound interesting. As an industrial property and business owner, I will look at these closely. This certainly is more than we are getting from the City - which is nothing. Although they have promised to meet with an industrial group - nothing has happened. No surprise there.