Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Broadway Cbd topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Broadway CBD ballot count triggers majority protest; Board tables district after public opposition
Summary
After public testimony opposing a proposed Broadway Entertainment Corridor Community Benefit District, the clerk reported 47.58% of ballots in favor, prompting the Board to find a majority protest and table the matter without adopting the district.
The Board of Supervisors opened a public hearing on the proposed Broadway Entertainment Corridor Property‑Based Business Improvement District (Broadway CBD). Staff described adjustments to the management plan after property‑owner and business meetings — modifications to assessment formulas, board composition (no single party to hold more than 50% of seats), linear frontage definitions and some parcel map clarifications.
More than a dozen property owners, small business operators and neighborhood residents testified in opposition. Speakers said their properties and businesses already pay taxes for police and cleaning and that adding an assessment at a moment of economic contraction would impose undue strain. Several small property owners said they received ballots or notices without clear explanation; others objected to “weighted” voting formulas and the role of outside management firms. Testimony also cited concentration of adult‑entertainment businesses in parts of the corridor and warned assessments could be dominated by a small number of large entities.
The clerk reported the tabulation results for the Broadway Entertainment Corridor Community Benefit District: ballots supporting the assessment totaled 47.58% (votes in opposition exceeded votes in favor). The Board found there was a majority protest, and Supervisor Daley moved to table item number 19. Seconded by Supervisor Sandoval, the motion to table the item was carried without objection. The Board did not adopt the district.
Why it matters: property‑based business improvement districts impose assessments on property owners to fund supplemental sanitation, safety or marketing services. A majority protest blocks formation. Opponents cited the timing amid a severe economic downturn and questioned the adequacy of owner outreach and the weighted‑vote structure; supporters previously argued targeted cleaning and safety services would benefit businesses and nightlife venues in the corridor.
Next steps: the tabling leaves the district proposal unresolved; staff or proponents may revise the management plan or conduct renewed outreach and return with an updated assessment plan at a future meeting.
