My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
CORRESPONDENCE - 12A
Clerk
>
Agenda Packets / Staff Reports
>
City Council (2004 - Present)
>
2020
>
11/17/2020
>
CORRESPONDENCE - 12A
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/18/2020 8:01:22 AM
Creation date
11/16/2020 10:14:14 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Clerk
Doc Type
Agenda Packet
Item #
12A
Date
11/17/2020
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
21
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
SANTA ANA'S PROPERTY BASED IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT <br />including the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development, as well as tax- <br />exempt bonds. <br />While the original intent appeared to be an effort to preserve the area's Hispanic and cultural <br />identity, subsequent efforts began to erode the very proposition that was supposed to preserve <br />this "redevelopment" area. <br />By 2006 and 2007, actions by the city and the developers were perceived as efforts to "gentrify" <br />the downtown area in what one newspaper reporter referred to as an "obvious effort to replace <br />the city's Mexican themed atmosphere with something more in keeping with a yuppie clientele." <br />Additional planning proposals included efforts to change the housing and business identities of <br />the downtown area with the addition of new apartment and condominium projects. Some <br />citizens saw this as a "Forced Gentrification Plan" along with other descriptions such as the <br />"Remove the Poor Mexicans from Downtown Santa Ana Plan." I <br />Under any terms or descriptions, the changes being proposed were destined to create a cultural <br />conflict. As explained by the city planners in the "Renaissance Plan", "The community's <br />heritage needs to be celebrated to express and enjoy the important aspect of daily life. Often <br />when communities forget their past they lose their cultural meaning and stand to seriously dilute <br />any future identity."2 <br />In response to the concerns being voiced, by 2008, city officials were making promises to amend <br />their earlier redevelopment plans giving more consideration to the cultural history of the <br />downtown area. <br />But in 2008, the City of Santa Ana initiated a program that offered financial rebates to the <br />business owners in the downtown area to improve the facades of their buildings. The "Fourth <br />Street Fagade Program" allocated one million, two hundred and fifty thousand dollars <br />($1,250,000) for improvements to building fronts with a supposed limitation of $75,000 per <br />storefront. However, for various reasons, the money went to only three (3) property owners: <br />CM Theater LP (West End Theatre) .......................... $ 63,814.77 <br />Gumm & Livingston Investments (Pacific Building)...... $110,191.00 <br />Fiesta Marketplace Partners (S & A Properties)............ $765,000.00 <br />The vast majority of these rebate dollars went to the same property owners/developers who <br />comprised the majority interest in the "Fiesta Marketplace" entity, i.e. those developers who <br />were the primary interests in changing the culture of the area. <br />These same property owners/developers have, and continue to have, extensive connections to the <br />newly formed non-profit business group called Downtown, Inc. As of this writing, these <br />developers presently serve as the officers and directors of Downtown Inc., the entity the City of <br />Santa Ana chose to manage the proceeds from the special assessment. <br />' Orange County Register, Dec. 23, 2007 <br />2 Ibid <br />2011-2012 ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY Page 212 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.