11-01-1971 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ASSESSMENT DISTRICT 225 - (Continued) The Director of Public Works presented moving pictures and color slides of the area included in the assessment district. Councilman Markel stated he would like to defend many things that had been said; that his interest in this matter has been to help the poor; that the district is being formed without the people having anything to say about it, and there, will be a lien against the property owner of $600 - $700; that if it is not liquidated, the property is taken from them whether the contractor holds the bonds or sells them; that in response to his inquiries, the Police Department had informed him there is no police problem in the area, and the Fire Chief stated there has been one fire in the area since he has been the Chief in Santa A~a; Mr. Markel further stated that he solicited these petitions with the assistance of Mr. John Harper; that they received no money and gave no money; that their only reason for going there was to help the poor; that there are good, Spanish-American people there who are contented with the area; that they should not be taxed unless they ask for it. Councilman Markel stated that he checked with the City Clerk for procedures; that he had the petitions prepared and sent out, but did not intimidate anyone; that he obtained the list of property owners from the Clerk, and in instances where there was a question as to whether or not the signature was valid, he obtained an opinion from Attorney Ganahl, Mr. Markel discussed the widths of the streets and sidewalks, also stating that he believes the sidewalks and curbs are needed in the area, but that the people on Edinger Street should be included; and that he has been working for the past six weeks for the poor citizens of the City of Santa Ana. Councilman Yamamoto spoke regarding the statements made on each issue-- enhancing property values, City beautification, amount of money to be spent on the project; that the most important subject is the safety of the children; and that of t~..e 161 protesters, only four were interested enough to attend the meeting. ~ ~,~ouncilman Herrin referred to Mr. Markel's statement that property owners were '~ not made aware of the in-~-cl;-crr..cnts of this assessment district. The Director of Public Works stated that legal notices were published and posted, and that each %,~roperty owner was given offlcml not~ce of the hearing, as well as an informal letter Councilman Herrin also questioned the fact that Councilman Markel appeared to be the only person who went out and actively tried to influence property owners, either for or against. In response to an inquiry from the Mayor, Mrs. Palomo and Mrs. Josephine Perez stated that they had worked in support of formation of the district. Councilman Patterson pointed out that the hearing being conducted was primarily for people to protest the formation of the district; that no organized group went out to try to influence the people to pay out $600 or $700 at $9.00 a month, but two persons were very actively involved in trying to get people to protest; yet of 256 property owners, there were only 148 protests, and only 38% of these protesters live in the district; _that only four opposed to the formation of the district were present at the hearing, but there were 27 people in favor of it who were present. He stated the overriding issue is the community need and desire for curbs, gutters and sidewalks in this area; that even the people who protested indicated they wanted to upgrade the property; that they objected to the cost; that the City already has CITY COUNCIL -365 - November 1, 1971