WE ARE NOT ALONE - more on Special/Benefits Districts

This week we received the following two e-mails sent from San Diego, Californina by an individual who also had experiences with an "assessment district" in her city and who, along with others, sued and finally won their case in appelate court.  To us it was a surprise to find out that this concept of a "Special Benefits District" is apparently another of those ideas spread like wildfire through cities in the U.S. without concern for the affected citizenry and that it takes individuals within those communities to fight city hall and the experienced, well-connected and wealthy who are behind these plans, in order to protect themselves from all that is wrong with these schemes.  Maybe now Californians will indeed get what the writer from San Diego hopes for, assessment districts "that property owners really and honestly want and understand, and control themselves".

Besides the court cases linked below, there is an article referred to below with the perfect title of "The Problem With Being Special - Democratic Values and Special Assessments" by Vladimir Kogan and Mahew D. McCubbins of the University of California, San Diego.  It can be found at http://pwm.sagepub.com/ Public Works Management & Policy, Volume 14, Number 1 July 2009 4-36.  Unfortunately, there is a cost to download the article but it points to so many of the problems I have outlined in my series of blogs concerning the Charles Village Community Benefits District.

If you have any interest in delving deeper into what we are dealing with our "Benefits District" in Charles Village I strongly suggest you continue to read this entire post.


E-mail 1 from San Diego:

"Just read your May 2012 post (http://othervoicesfromcharlesvillage.blogspot.com/p/this-post-is-from-another-voice-from.html). Excellent writing, informative and cogent. You cited two studies, "The Sub-Districting of Cities" and "Private Governments In Urban Areas - Political Contracting and Collective Action." Attached is another publication that you might appreciate." ("The Problem With Being Special - Democratic Values and Special Assessments" ).

I follow developments in establishment and operation of assessment districts (aka "benefits districts, "improvement districts," "maintenance districts") and routine googling pulled up your blog entry. My interest stems from an assessment district that was established  in my community in San Diego in 2007. Over 3500 property owners were assessed on a weighted dollar-basis vote. I and a few others sued, and after 5 years of legal battles, the district was ruled illegal in appellate court. (In California, we have a State constitutional requirement that a property assessment imposed on this weighted-majority aggregated  basis, and not on a 2/3 vote of the entire community or voting public, must meet two criteria: that it pays only for special benefits to the assessed property, distinct from general benefits to the public at large, and that the amount assessed on each property is directly proportional to the benefit received by the property.)

Importantly, your analysis of the level of community awareness and participation is spot on, identical to what happened in my community,  and is representative of  every district I have analyzed.

Good work."

Continuation - E-mail 2:

Partial response from me to the first e-mail from San Diego:

"We recently heard the Admnistrator of our benefits district, whom his supporters call the "Executive Director", say that he wants to be the leader in setting up such benefits districts all over the U.S.  I think he's a bit late in his thinking."

E-mail 2 - Response from San Diego:
"And yes, your Exec Dir would be a little late to the game! At least, he would run into major competition in California, as several firms here pride themselves in owning the assessment district formation market that sells services to local governments. They have made a lot of money doing that over many years.

By Pamela Wilson:
Following three successive rulings in California (below), we can hope that assessment districts in Cal are more likely to be ones that property owners really and honestly want and understand, and control themselves. The districts with which I am familiar have been primarily a source of wealth (and power) for the small "nonprofit" groups that drive the district  formation - in collusion with privatization-friendly local governments, the well-paid assessment engineering firms, and local business groups - with up to 30-40% of assessment dollars being spent on salaries, overhead, propaganda, and often useless activities.

Cases (each is slightly different, with my neighborhood case being the most egregious example of corruption and waste):

Silicon Valley  v. Santa Clara County (http://blog.aklandlaw.com/uploads/file/Silicon.pdf)

Beutz v. County of Riverside County (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/californiastatecases/e046318.pdf)

Golden Hill v. City of San Diego (my neighborhood's case) (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/californiastatecases/D057004.PDF)

With these decisions, it's going to be much more difficult to create assessment money pots for the use of those who think they know how to improve our lives, against our will."