Santa Ana residents push for community oversight on $22M development budget

The Santa Ana City Council convened on June 3, 2025, addressing key community concerns and budgetary matters that resonate deeply with residents. The meeting highlighted the importance of community engagement and oversight in local governance, particularly regarding significant financial allocations.

One of the most notable discussions came from Patricia DeSantis, a resident of Ward 4, who urged the council to establish a community oversight committee for the $22 million allocated from the Bridal-related development project. DeSantis emphasized that residents have a right to influence how substantial portions of the city’s budget—amounting to $255 million in unrestricted spending—are utilized. She expressed concern over a perceived lack of transparency, citing a previous vote that denied community oversight without public record. This call for accountability reflects a broader desire among residents for a more participatory governance model, particularly in light of the city's ongoing construction projects.

In contrast, Carl Benninger from the Metro Classic Neighborhoods celebrated local initiatives aimed at fostering community pride. He announced the upcoming CommLINK annual awards, which will recognize neighborhood heroes and outstanding yards, reinforcing the city’s commitment to improving neighborhoods "block by block." Benninger praised the city’s planning commission for their effective use of housing funds, contrasting Santa Ana’s accountability with that of larger cities like Los Angeles.

The council also moved through a series of consent calendar items, with a few council members registering no votes or recusing themselves from specific items due to conflicts of interest. The council unanimously approved several items, indicating a collaborative approach to routine governance.

Public hearings were held regarding the 2025-2029 Consolidated Plan and the annual action plan for Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) programs, although no public comments were received on these items. This lack of engagement may suggest either satisfaction with the proposed plans or a disconnect between the council and the community regarding these initiatives.

As the meeting concluded, the discussions underscored a critical tension in local governance: the need for transparency and community involvement in decision-making processes versus the operational efficiency of the council. Moving forward, the council faces the challenge of bridging this gap, ensuring that residents feel heard and valued in the city’s development and budgetary decisions. The next steps will likely involve revisiting the request for community oversight and addressing the concerns raised by residents to foster a more inclusive governance framework.