Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Reseda business improvement district faces protests; council holds ordinance for second reading
Loading...
Summary
Supporters urged the council to approve a Reseda business improvement district; opponents presented protest forms and financial concerns. The city clerk reported about 20% protest by assessed dollars (roughly 142 of ~740 businesses), a boundary modification that may reduce protest to ~17%, and an additional $3,108.83 from a door‑to‑door survey. Council moved the ordinance to a May 5 second reading.
The Los Angeles City Council heard a contested public hearing on a proposed business improvement district (BID) for Reseda, where organized supporters and a vocal group of opponents presented competing accounts of local business sentiment.
Carl Percival, who identified himself as a Reseda resident and BID supporter, told the council the organizing committee had worked for years and that thousands benefit from BIDs elsewhere. Anne Kinzel, identified as director of the Reseda Chamber of Commerce, and other proponents urged approval so the district could proceed.
Opponents, led in the hearing by Susan Holt House (who addressed the council as representing business owners opposed to the plan), told the council hundreds of protest forms had been filed and argued the organizing committee did not have widespread business support. Holt House said the objections fell into three categories: questions about the necessity of the services, financial risk to businesses, and lack of business control over district operations. She also raised liability concerns for assessed businesses and asked that the council reject or delay the BID.
Mike Kerry, the city clerk, told the council the written protests equated to roughly 20% of the assessed dollars (about 142 businesses out of some 740-plus assessed), and that a boundary modification under consideration would lower that figure to approximately 17%, keeping it within the range the council can act on. Kerry also said a door‑to‑door survey added $3,108.83 to the budget figures and that the council would need to insert a new Exhibit A describing the revised boundaries if it adopted the ordinance for second reading.
After public comment and debate, the council held the ordinance for second reading and scheduled it for May 5 so the boundary modification and final report changes could be finalized.
No final adoption occurred; the council’s action was to set the item for a second reading with an adjusted boundary exhibit and to allow staff to update the report and budget figures.
