Here's something you might be interested in.
Today, a state appeals judge ruled that the City "improperly inflated" the voting in order to create the Greater Golden Hill Maintenance Assessment District back in August 2007. The court ruled the district "invalid."
Golden Hill's MAD has been a messy issue ever since it was formed. Some residents felt the City was charging an added assessment for general benefits while others felt the residents should have more say as to which projects should be funded.
In August 2007, some of those opposed to the MAD filed a lawsuit, accusing the City of overweighing the open-space vote. The lawsuit also claimed that the assessment did not separate general benefits from special benefits and that the City failed to roll over funds from the 2007/2008 assessment.
According to court documents, the City dismissed the claim that they improperly weighed the open-space vote, saying it "carried a substantial portion of the assessment burden, paying approximately $35,000 or more per year of the estimated $488,890 budget annually since its inception."
In the ruling, the judge dismissed the City's dismissal. "A local agency could view $35,000 in special assessment charges as a small price to pay to shift over $400,000 in costs for improvements and services that would otherwise have to be paid from its general revenues to the property owners in a special assessment district."
And because the vote was errant, the district is considered invalid.
I am waiting to hear back from the City Attorney's office.
Map from Wikipedia
Today, a state appeals judge ruled that the City "improperly inflated" the voting in order to create the Greater Golden Hill Maintenance Assessment District back in August 2007. The court ruled the district "invalid."
Golden Hill's MAD has been a messy issue ever since it was formed. Some residents felt the City was charging an added assessment for general benefits while others felt the residents should have more say as to which projects should be funded.
In August 2007, some of those opposed to the MAD filed a lawsuit, accusing the City of overweighing the open-space vote. The lawsuit also claimed that the assessment did not separate general benefits from special benefits and that the City failed to roll over funds from the 2007/2008 assessment.
According to court documents, the City dismissed the claim that they improperly weighed the open-space vote, saying it "carried a substantial portion of the assessment burden, paying approximately $35,000 or more per year of the estimated $488,890 budget annually since its inception."
In the ruling, the judge dismissed the City's dismissal. "A local agency could view $35,000 in special assessment charges as a small price to pay to shift over $400,000 in costs for improvements and services that would otherwise have to be paid from its general revenues to the property owners in a special assessment district."
And because the vote was errant, the district is considered invalid.
I am waiting to hear back from the City Attorney's office.
Map from Wikipedia