Unexpected anonymous accusation leveled against Santa Ana Councilman Vincent Sarmiento (third from right.) Let’s hash this out here and now!
[Editor’s Note: This comment came from someone using the name “Ana Tansa,” a cleverly disguised anagram for Santa Ana — we have no idea who it is — in our recent story on Vince Sarmiento’s statements on the OC Water District. It doesn’t really belong there, and as an anonymous attack it would normally be something that we frown upon, but it’s sufficiently detailed and substantial that instead we’re going to post it here and invite both expansion and rebuttal of the charges. We will email a link to this post to the Santa Ana City Council membership and staff momentarily.
Honestly, we don’t know what to make of this, and we don’t intend to promote viewers to take this comment at face value — but we do want to be open to real legitimate whistleblowers. Of course, these kinds of comments don’t come labeled as trustworthy or not, but this seems like a coherent effort at whistleblowing — and it’s probably being pitched in other venues as well — so as relatively “neutral soil” we’re going to let these charges be hashed out here and in real time. — GAD]
“Ana Tansa” writes:
Per my sources at the SA Planning Dept, another scandal may be brewing with Sarmiento. While the homeless fill up the Civic Center, and service organizations compete for a measly $340K in CDBG funds, Vince strong armed staff into giving $4.7 million in Housing funds to AMCAL whose OC office is led by former Planning Commissioner and Vince buddy Mario Turner. This $4.7 million includes $2 million pure profit and was sole sourced, no competition at all unlike previous developers with strong projects who competed and the poor CDBG service organizations have to do right now. The April 7th Council meeting is where service organizations grovel, and For Profit developers pick up $2 million paydays.
Every City Dept I am told is against this deal, because the City is taking all the risk, including their poor newly hired Housing Division Manager who I was also told was let go today in part because of his opposition to this deal. So while Santa Ana ignores the increasing number of homeless lining up to get free meals on the “Walk of Honor”, FOV’s (Friends of Vince) walk away with $2 million in cash. Looks like Vince is not so much that OC Progressive he lets on…a Republican in sheep’s clothing.
The recorded March 9th FedTech Committee meeting is illuminating because in it Sarmiento and Councilmember Martinez essentially tell staff do not perform due diligence on this transaction.
A storm is brewing over there at City Hall. No one running Planning, no one is running the Housing Dept or Housing Authority, Council committees now dictating to staff outside the normal channels (effectively shutting out the other 5 Council members). Pass the popcorn…April 7th at the Santa Ana City Council is going to be interesting.
Serious if true; scurrilous if faked! What do any of you out there know about this? We will accept anonymous comments for this item, but if they’re going to be anonymous please make them substantive and do not make them vicious or hyperbolic. If they add no light to the discussion, they are liable to be spiked. Now let’s see what we can hash out between now and April 7!
NOTE: OFF-TOPIC COMMENTS ON BENEVIDES AND HIS NON-PROFIT HAVE BEEN MOVED TO ANOTHER POST: http://www.orangejuiceblog.com/2015/03/for-those-who-want-to-talk-about-benevides-instead-that-discussion-is-moving-here/
FURTHER OFF-TOPIC COMMENTS ALONG THOSE LINES WILL SIMPLY BE DELETED. MOVE THAT DISCUSSION TO THE NEW POST.
A few more details from Planning on this one. It is really a great story. I was flabbergasted when I found out. How could a City agree to do all of this for one developer?
You see, the site in question, 1440 E. First St., is zoned commercial. There is a multi story office building on it. If you buy it as an office building, appraisal is $4.25 million. Zone it multifamily, appraisal zooms to $4.55 million. AMCAL is in the process of buying it for $4.5 million.
But it is still zoned commercial. What about spot zoning it? Prohibited. The Saddleback Hotel people wanted their site zoned residential, City said no.
Ahhh, how about we take the Metro Area Specific plan and we enlarge it to cover this area? That would do it. So City Planning staff, is now starting the process of enlarging the specific plan to cover this site. That process takes a year or two.
All of this, so the City can give AMCAL $4.7 million which includes $2 million in profits, $1 million in relocation fees, $1 million in vouchers and only $700,000 actually going to constructing the units. The rest will be financed by tax credits.
Oh, and staff included a provision in a recent Council report for the April 7th meeting that stated AMCAL could not come back for additional funds because AMCAL made that declaration in the March 9th FedTech meeting (in order to get that $2 million up front). However, that provision was stricken out this week so this deal may end costing a lot more at the end of the day.
It is a huge mess. The only out now for the City is to pull this item from April 7th and go with a fair, independent, competitive process for all developers to participate. That’s what the staffer who was fired wanted all along. Get the best deal for the City and the taxpayers whose money it is (and for the developers who pay Inclusionary Housing Fees. Don’t you think they might be a bit upset at the profit being given to AMCAL?).
Why wouldn’t the City want to do that competitive process? They make the poor service providers do it for $340,000 in CDBG funds? Yet for $4.7 million dollars (today, in the future this deal’s price tag might rise) they don’t? It just doesn’t make sense…
Can you flesh out some of the details here for those of us less familiar with them? For example: tell our readers what “CDBG” and “AMCAL” stand for. And what is the name of the “poor newly hired Housing Division Manager who I was also told was let go today”?
Since we’re giving you prominent placement, given your charges, it would be good form for you to disclose if you have any personal interest in this story. For example, your being the person who was fired — which I presume you are not — would be an interest should certainly be disclosed, as would your being someone whose company many profit from the matter being put out to a competitive process. (Again, I have no idea who you are and the foregoing do not represent my guesses.)
Presuming that your relationship with those involved in these matters is not something that close, you should feel free to be vague enough to preserve your anonymity without omitting something “material” (that is, “that really matters.”) We’re bending traditions by giving you this forum, so please bear in mind that Vern and I have a respect for whistleblowing we do not like the notion of OJB being used for acts of personal or political sabotage. (So, if you’re doing that here — again, I don’t really know — undo it.)
An email to the City Council inviting comment was sent tonight at 10:40 p.m.
Okay, first, AMCAL is a non-profit “affordable housing” developer (or at least they used to be) that relies on sugar daddies like the County and Santa Ana to overpay for real estate based on units per acre, jacked up by density bonuses and other incentives instead of what the property is really worth. They get some dopey appraiser to go along with the scam by specifically commissioning an appraisal for the wrong evaluation. This happened with several affordable housing developers when I was at the County, including AMCAL and Mario Turner. The result is grossly overpaying for real-estate. It’s always a good idea to see who the current property owner is.
If the project is for affordable housing then it is possibly included as an overlay in the commercial zone as per State HCD requirements to increase affordable housing opportunities; hence the development would be “by right” and no CUPs and no public hearings for land use.
Yup – sounds like everyday crony capitalism – which isn’t “capitalism” at all. It is state run racketeering.
Zenger —
Help us understand, based on your experience in county government, what would be illegal if these accusations are true and what would fall into the OC’s vaunted “probably should be illegal but technically isn’t” category.
There is only one thing that looks like an accusation and that is that AMCAL will somehow pocket a two million dollar profit upfront. The zoning issues may be irrelevant because I’ll bet SA has adopted a housing opportunity overlay that could include the zone in question, which is likely O-P – not commercial. If this is the case development of affordable housing can occur “by right.”
All that other CBDG stuff is completely irrelevant to anything.
I sincerely doubt that AMCAL is making any big score upfront, but you’d have to look at the pro-forma and figure out the deal.
P.S. the Court of Appeals has very recently deemed spot zoning to be acceptable if the project in question is of social benefit. The case? Bill Campbell’s Catholic Retirement project in North Tustin. That one’s not over yet.
AMCAL learned politics at the County where their god-awful project was as dead as Michaelangelo. Then they maxed out to Nelson and the deal was alive again and the taxpayers picked up the check for Mario’s overpriced property.
Thanks for everything, Bill.
These accusations are (if true) concerning. Here’s why:
For YEARS rumors about Vince’s residency have swirled around. Some publishing the address of the Orange Park Acres estate, others validated with google earth foto’s of the trampoline in that same house contrasted by the Borchard house, where nary a bike or a trike can ever be seen. The absence of trash on pick up days (who has three teenagers and no garbage????) Along with supposed neighbor comments as well as his own expense reports, as reported here.. All the while Vince and his wife have generous in lending the Santa Ana mansion to fellow Democrats (and the occasional republican) for fundraisers and such. At these events it was obvious no one lived there, yet no one wanted to say anything because Vince was one of the good guys.
So while the Voice Of OC absolutely destroys Miguel Pulido (You won’t see me cry over that) and the left blogesphere calls him a crook and accuses him of being a “Millionare” Vince, along with his family (not so) quietly own millions of dollars in real estate in downtown Santa Ana. Heck, Vince and Daisy didn’t even go to SAUSD. They went to Foothill!
My point is simple, it’s easy to believe something or someone you want to. The whole Dem establishment has cradled this guy because didn’t want to acknowledge what was right in front of them. And if someone is so vile to LIE about where he lives (something so fundamental) why are you surprised by something like this?
Time for someone to rock the cradle. Vince is as you are seeing NOT one of the good guys.
For the record — and not to defend Sarmiento on the housing issue except to say that under our present OCDA residency of politicians seems not to be a matter of legality at all — this is the sort of comment that I had hoped not to see because it smacks of being a politically inspired “hit piece” designed to get the reader to the assertion in the final sentence. The choice of the name “Claudia” (as in “Alvarez”) an apparent pseudonym is a dead giveaway.
I’m not sure that I’d have approved it; I’m also not sure it will remain here. These are serious charges and they need to be assessed without people jumping in to score broader (and extraneous) political points. Because “Claudia” will, I’m guessing, come back for another swing at this, I expect it will likely end up deleted.
You guys are way off base, the first clue that something was amiss was the name “Ana Tansa” and self respecting liberal knows it’s really “AnaTansa”, just ask Gustavo!
Seriously though, you were off on the Claudia comment, she and Vince are/were thick as thieves, I don’t read that the way you do. But, then again, most people don’t care about residency fraud, it’s the kind of cheating that’s allowed. Which is I think the commenters point.
I think Greg is confused. If that was a political “hit piece” the offending would have come from “Valerie” not “Claudia” who is politically insignificant now (and engaged I hear).
The obvious question is not being asked of Ana. That in and of itself is indicative of who “she” is.
I’m out of the Santa Ana gossip loop, that’s for sure — and by choice.
I don’t think that Trustee Alvarez is “politically insignificant” now. If Mayoral term limits hold, someone is going to succeed Pulido, and I’ve certainly heard her mentioned as a possible contender.
What is the “obvious question”? Please ask it. And then I’d like to get back to the substance of the allegations, if possible.
Wait. To be fair, you post what you descibe as could be a “scurrilous” article based on a phantom poster. There has not been a single bit of evidence and you say:….”it smacks of a political hit piece”…REALLY??
Claudia Alverez is done. I don’t know where you get your intel, but it’s way off base.
The question someone should be asking is this:
Who stands to gain by this demolishment of Sarmiento?
I suspect I know. But, I’ll wait for at least one fact, from one credible source.
Trust me. Claudia is as dead as Carlos Bustamonte in these parts.
I said it’s scurrilous if it’s not true. We’re trying to find out. If it’s a hit piece, I expect that that truth will come out sooner for our having published it than it would have had we not. With the April 7 meeting impending, though, I think it’s better to find out sooner than later.
What you’re actually saying, though, doesn’t seem all that useful or credible. Lots of opinion, no underlying facts. May not last. We’ll see.
Well, that is the comically ironic thing. If you do a property search, you find 1440 E. First st is owned by Grand Frontier Investments. One of the principals in this firm is Brett Nemeth. He is a Republican lawyer from Newport, his blog posts and newspaper comments show he is the political opposite (supposedly) of the Santa Ana City Council. So a program that Democrats like (affordable housing) makes Republicans rich 😉
Oh, something else Planning didn’t like in the design. 30 units of 2 bedrooms and 1 bath. Occupancy limit for those is 5. However, if a baby or two is born the City cannot kick out the family per HUD. Can you imagine 7 people sharing one bath? Potential for another Santa Ana slum development.
Finally, CDBG is the Community Development Block Grant program from HUD. The City let non-profits compete for a measly $340,000 this year (out of a nearly $6 million grant). 30+ non-profits competed, only 10 were selected. Staff recommended a similar process for the Inclusionary Funds and HOME (another HUD program) funds. Instead, AMCAL (the name of the developer) will be given not only current funds, but future funds as they come in (plus the opportunity to add to the $4.7 million already requested). So at this time, no competitive process especially if AMCAL takes the future funding (if more market rate developers pay the fees. What if development slows down and they don’t?)
So not only is the City liable for future funds, but the developer has no skin in the game. It is all debt. The project collapses, the first mortgage will be made whole, City could lose everything. Again, I am told every City Dept touching this deal – City Attorney, Finance, Planning, Housing, Community Development – hate this project. But it is being ramrodded through anyway. Whatever changes the new City Manager want to make with the culture at Santa Ana, are being systematically underminded with each City Council tainted transaction. Morale has collapsed, the Downtown Liaison has also left for Ventura. The talented people always leave…
See my comments above about AMCAL. My guess is the money is coming from former Redevelopment housing obligations. I have no idea if there was a NOFA process to at least make it look competitive.
“Affordable housing” developers never have any skin in the game. Their “equity” is usually a cooked-up “deferred developer’s fee” that looks like something.
“So not only is the City liable for future funds, but the developer has no skin in the game. It is all debt. The project collapses, the first mortgage will be made whole, City could lose everything. Again, I am told every City Dept touching this deal – City Attorney, Finance, Planning, Housing, Community Development – hate this project. But it is being ramrodded through anyway.”
Oh, no. Haven’t we already seen plenty of this in Anaheim? So Sarmiento is willing to risk bankrupting the city to enrich his “friends”?
Watch the campaign contributions come rolling in – from corporations and individuals connected to the corporations – and others.
Even more hilarious is what Sarmiento said last year in this article:
http://voiceofoc.org/2014/11/are-the-oc-registers-santa-ana-land-deals-affecting-its-city-hall-coverage/
The Register’s land is located in Sarmiento’s ward, and he said he expressed his opposition in that meeting to having only high-density residential at the plot.
“I scrutinize any changes to zoning, especially when it involves a zoning amendment or change to residential from commercial or industrial,” Sarmiento said.
So when The Register or Michael Harrah want to re-zone to high density market rate residential he opposes, but, AMCAL and Mario Turner request a zoning change for affordable high density residential and he strong arms it? Indeed, follow the money but would be interesting to see Mike Harrah’s reaction to this,,,
Ana Tansa,
How do you know the developer will be making a $2 million profit? Do you have documents to back up your claims?
If so, please email them to me. aelmahrek@voiceofoc.org
Thank you,
Adam Elmahrek
Staff Writer
Voice of OC
http://www.voiceofoc.org
I will get those for you and forward them.
Regarding the $2 million dollar profit, I was told Staff clearly laid out its concerns at the Public meeting of the Financial, Education Development and Technology council committee. A powerpoint presentation was given and the meeting was recorded. In the presentation, staff apparently details the financing including the unusual request by AMCAL to get its $2 million developer fee up front rather than defer part of the fee (usually ten years) as typical in an affordable deal. Councilmembers Martinez and Sarmiento tell staff their due diligence is excessive and tell staff to wrap this up so it gets approved by full Council at April 7th meeting.
I was told that AMCAL as of yesterday apparently has no money in the deal, other than predevelopment, and can request more if they need to improve their application for tax credits. The City only has $1.875 million in Inclusionary funds and HOME funds are spent so the City is essentially pledging as yet not received developer funds set aside for affordable housing.
“Ana” —
I’m going to ask you again: who is the person that you say was fired over this? And, do you have any personal interest in this matter? I’ve stated above the degree of specificity that I’d want to see in any answer.
I’m going to keep asking you these questions until you provide a reasonable reply. Understand that (whether I ask them or not), those whom you criticize will probably assert that you are either the fired employee (or his or her close associate) or some competitor who wants in on the deal or some political foe of at least Sarmiento and maybe Martinez, which will blunt the impact of your criticisms and allow them to change the subject.
Note that none of those possibilities are necessarily damning; you could have a personal interest and yet still have demonstrable facts on your side. I’m asking because I’d like to “get to the bottom of this” and — if you are entirely sincere and correct here — I would like not to be distracted by accusations about your motives (which, unless the people you indict are going to ignore this, are very likely to be forthcoming.)
You have Adam’s attention already, so this has already “worked” for you; now your choice is whether discussion here will stay on topic or not.
“Ana Tsana” is likely referring to Sidney Stone, Housing Division Manager. Sidney worked for the city for ashort time (January I think). Word at Ross Annex was he was let go within the probationary period. No reason given publicly but, he was said to be in “way over his head”. He came from a small town in Santa Clara 1/10 the size and far more affluent than Santa Ana. Additionally, he was the 3rd choice for the position.
Obviously, Ana Tansa has an axe to grind, rightfully or wrongfully, however hallow threats about funding an opposition campaign, when he or she won’t even identify themselves. As for the “Cabal”, “Jim” mentioned. Inside money at Ross was on Benavides former business partner/real estate broker who has knowlege and background in this area. We thought Sidney was being set up to lose his job for her!
Just a note to commenters: the more you stay on the topic of explaining (or explaining away) the problems with this deal and the less on personalities and personal accusations, the more likely your comment is to survive. I found this one close to the edge; another one that ended up on who was supposedly believed to having an affair with whom toppled off of it.
This being “close to the edge” involved what we in the blogosphere call “hijacking a discussion” by turning the discussion to alleged wrongdoing on the part of Benavides And, sure enough, that’s what happened. So I am setting up a new post on that topic and porting the comments on that topic to that post.
I do take more seriously written comments of the sort of “A is having an affair with B” because they are so easy to make and so hard to disprove, so those are not likely to remain.
As for the rest — thanks for the anonymous input. Be fruitful and multiply.
I’m sorry, I forgot to answer your question. It was the Housing Division Manager, in charge of both Housing Development and the Housing Authority who was fired. This was effective yesterday.
I have no personal financial interest in this other than being appalled at this travesty and upset how funds for affordable housing are being used in such an inefficient manner, when it is clear how great the need is to solve the Civic Center mess. Imagine what could be done with a large part of that developer’s $2 million profit.
I will be offline for awhile so definitely let me know what other details you need.
I was looking for the fired person’s name, which would by now might be hard to find on the City’s website.
Thanks for the statement. If it doesn’t blow your cover, can you say how you found out about this?
We just received this message apparently from Councilwoman Martinez:
Adam E., that probably should be directed to you. I have no idea what she would expect us to find. (If it’s to be a CPRA request, we would not necessarily get it on time anyway.)
Where does Martinez fit in all of this? She evidently has it on her radar, since she is trying to address it directly with Adam E., and she came up in the original post as a due diligence foe.
AND – if you notice – when I chose the “featured image” with an uncomfortable-looking Sarmiento – her nameplate is there too! One reason I chose that picture.
You’d have to ask the guy who posted this.
Your name is attached to this weak sauce article Diamond. I would be embarrassed to have posted it as well.
Your standards for embarrassment are odd ones. Have you READ your old comments here, you race-baiting conspiracy theorist?
Let me explain it to you again, as you may have missed the Editor’s note or high school or your medication:
Someone wrote a comment here on Vern’s OCWD piece that had referenced Sarmiento. They made what seemed to be a plausible (which is short of conclusive or convincing) case that something bad may be happening. There is no way that I would have the time (and perhaps not even the relevant expertise) to investigate it quickly enough, given the fast-approaching April 7 Santa Ana Council meeting.
Rather than spike it or leave it to be ignored in that other post, I decided to post it as an article to facilitate our getting to the bottom of it in a timely manner That seems to be working to some degree; we’re getting a better sense of the charges, the rebuttals, and (from Zenger, for example) the stakes, which may (or may not) be lower than it seemed.
I’m still reserving judgment. But for those who think that even allowing the topic to be raised is insulting Sarmiento or whatever shilly is getting at here: Sarmiento is an experienced politician and he surely knows that he has to be able to withstand this. If there’s no basis for concern, that’s fine with me. If there is one, then knowledge that whistleblowers have a forum should be helpful at keeping him and others on the proper path.
Now go play with your friends in the Walrus Pool, shilly.
It is easy to tell when Diamond is cornered. It’s when he resorts to name calling and belittling comments.
No, that’s what happens when I’m frustrated by some commenter that Vern makes me endure being an idiotic asshole. Stop earning the names and deserving the belittling.
See my reply down below, Jim.
gawd, i just love capitalism
“Santiago Park Jim” writes:
Thanks for your comment. I’m happy to reply.
The comment was posted in another item addressing Sarmiento. It was already made public. My choices as an editor were to leave it there, spike it, or try to get to the bottom of it. I don’t have the ready expertise (or the free time, at present) to get to the bottom of it, but it seemed a cogent enough charge on its face to put it out for the public to see if the charges would be confirmed or refuted.
Calling Sarmiento was pointless: rightly or wrongly, he would (surely) deny wrongdoing and (probably) explain it away in ways that I’d have no good way to evaluate. I’d be left with the same decision: allow it or suppress it. I had hoped (and still hope) to have a thorough rebuttal from him or his camp; giving him time to prepare a considered one is in my view preferable to the “gotcha” ambush of a public official that is a journalistic norm. If he doesn’t want to provide one, that’s fine too; if he provides it elsewhere, and I’m aware of it, I’ll copy and repost it here.
Is it “basically stealing $2,000,000”? No, because as with so many other deals between OC politicians and their supporters and funders, it would probably be legal. (The Poseidon deal, which I think is the moral equivalent of theft, is probably legal.) The debate is not “should Sarmiento go to jail for this?” or whatever you imagine, but “should the Santa Ana City Council do something or not do something on April 7?” That’s a political question, not a legal one; it’s an ethical accusation, not a criminal one.
As I’ve said repeatedly now, I’m not convinced by it, but I do want to see people in Santa Ana check it out. It’s hard to avoid the conclusion that you don’t.
Your second paragraph is a little garbled. You are probably aware of what Vern found and reported in another post: that Sarmiento has been filing for reimbursement for travel to OCWD meetings from the out-of-Santa-Ana residence where various people claim that he lives. I take that a lot more seriously than Rackauckas does, but the objective fact is that Rackauckas doesn’t seem to take it seriously at all. And, regardless, shifting to discussion of Sarmiento’s residency takes us away from the question at hand: and THAT is the basis on which I waved off that commenter. I want to get to the bottom of this accusation; I don’t want to declare open season on Sarmiento.
I don’t understand your third paragraph at all. I’m not even whether you’re talking about the residency issue or this issue being “easy … to prove or disprove,” If you’re talking about this issue, I disagree with you.
As for your final paragraph, I think that the main reason that people haven’t come forward to write about Pulido is that people in OC rarely come forward to write about ANYTHING, unless for money or the hope of it. Part of that reason is the prospect of retaliation. That’s why I take anonymous whistleblowing more seriously than you at least seem to.
I take it from some of your language (“accusing a sitting (and say rising) local politician”; “outwardly political attack”) that you’re a fan of Sarmiento — as, generally, am I in his struggles against Pulido. That doesn’t mean that I think he is incapable of doing wrong, or above investigation, or that he won’t do a better job than otherwise if he knows that the public IS watching what he does.
But don’t worry: I’m fully aware that this could be a dirty trick by someone (likely one in the Pulido camp) to tar Sarmiento unfairly — and, if so, I expect that the truth will come out. (And that which does not kill Sarmiento in this sort of situation probably would make him stronger. That’s fine by me if he’s not doing anything wrong.) But the only text that automatically goes off of this site is the headline — and the headline intentionally contains none of the allegations themselves, but merely puts the ball in Sarmiento’s court.
But I also can’t rule out that there is something real behind it — and. IF there is, what I’ve done makes it easier for someone in the various city departments that oppose this to come forward anonymously with more corroborating details. (And it also, as you’ll note, has put Adam E. on the scent, which I think is a good thing.) It’s not my job to shield Sarmiento from criticism; I do, though, want to make sure that he has every chance to put this story in the light most favorable to him.
Where you and I may differ is this: I think that for the most part OC has absolutely horrible investigations — both legal (through the OCDA) and journalistic (with some exceptions from the Register and the Weekly and a higher proportion of a smaller number from the Voice.) We need to provide conduits for whistleblowers here — at least for ones dealing with official wrongdoing or something approaching it. (I don’t think that I’d have put a “sex and drugs” accusation like this in its own story.) I make no apology for helping to fill the gap that OUGHT to be occupied by a trustworthy prosecutors office and a vibrant media. The greater danger for OC is in suppressing any allegations until one is really really sure about them
Diamond says: “.. that’s what happens when I’m frustrated by some commenter that Vern makes me endure being an idiotic asshole.”
Interesting ……. so if it were up to you, you would censor me – is that about right?
And the belittling and name-calling continue …….
When you warrant it.
Thank for your thoughtful, if condescending reply.
It appears you have been getting too much of your Santa Ana news from a singular source (IE. drinking the Voice Of OC Kool-Aid). For a more educated guess as to who might be behind this would be someone in the Amezcua/Benavides cabal. .
Clearly both Vince and David want to succeed Pulido as mayor. With attacks like this the “poverty pimps” that support David remove what everyone knows is qualified opponent.
I am certain you will find fault with my logic, grammar and misunderstand my position, but heck that’s what you do.
Good luck with your which hunt.
It ain’t my (please don’t consider this correction condescending) “witch hunt.” This is part of the public service that someone managing a reasonably popular blog does. I have many more pressing things I’d like to write about and many more important tasks than this to work on — but if something that may be legitimate comes up we should (and ideally do) try to facilitate getting to the bottom of it.
Barring information well beyond what’s been said here and beyond what I expect is true, Sarmiento will not be removed as a “qualified opponent,” and least not based on this. So you can relax a little. If this is indeed a war between Sarmiento and Benavides forces that has spilled into our blog, that’s unfortunate — but I don’t think that either Vern or I take a side there and we’re only interested in allegations of factual improprieties of greater public interest getting resolved.
Use of the term “poverty pimps” is really endearing, by the way. I can barely describe how much it raises your anonymous credibility.
SARMIENTO ENGINEERS FIRING OF NEWLY HIRED HOUSING DIVISION MANAGER – WHO JUST MOVED HERE FROM NOR CAL TO BE HIS SON AND HIS DYING MOTHER _- SO A FORMER PLANNING COMMISSION BUDDY CAN GET A $2 MILLION PAYDAY
That’s the wording I want to see on a mailer next year during the 2016 elections. A mailer I will pay for regardless of who the opponent is. I may or may not respond to previous comments separately – I was enjoying the weather this weekend and having a life – but I wanted to give everyone an overview of what really transpired. I have heard the full story now and it is just so Santa Ana typical. They are just as bad as the LA County cities with recent scandals including Bell. I advised Sidney, the fired employee not to take this job. He did so anyway because of his son and his mom who has Stage 4 cancer. Who fires someone with those personal circumstances only because that person wanted to negotiate the best deal for their employer and for the taxpayers/market rate developers funding the project? Absolutely despicable and immoral.
BACKGROUND
In January, staff presented at the Financial, Economic Development and Technology (FedTech) committee meeting a competitive process mechanism for release of the Inclusionary Housing Funds. These were funds paid by market rate developers for the purpose of building Affordable Housing. In the Jan 12 meeting this process was approved. The next day, calls and emails came out rescinding that approval (from the FedTech councilmembers). On January 27th, staff went back to this committee and was told to process an application for AMCAL and only work with this firm in spite of at least 4 other affordable developers expressing interest in building in the City. Mario Turner, former SA Planning Commissioner alongside Sarmiento, leads AMCAL’s OC office.
There are only two Councilmembers currently on this committee: Sarmiento and Michelle Martinez. Essentially, they dictated to staff policy without input from the other 5 Council members. They also bypassed the Community Redevelopment and Housing Commission, which theoretically recommends affordable housing developments to Council.
Staff was told to have this project before Council at the March 21st meeting. Essentially a “pre-approved” project circumventing supposedly how government with public input is supposed to work. Leverage over AMCAL evaporated of course yet Sidney, against my advice, persisted in trying to get some wins out of this. At the March 9th FedTech meeting, Housing staff at Michelle Martinez’s request presented an update on the project and why it would be delayed until the April 7th CC meeting. Those problems included:
*High Relocation fees due to a cell phone equipment contract at selected site.
*Valuation of property based on future zoning not current
*Developer fee not deferred
*Design of project (30 Two bedroom, one bath units raised red flags with staff)
*High likelihood of additional City funds needed beyond $4.7 million due to low tax credit application score.
*Zoning of site not compatible
Staff was essentially told at this meeting why were they performing such due diligence and AMCAL feigned ignorance that staff ever brought these issues up in February (despite voluminous amounts of correspondence between the parties).
With leverage evaporated, AMCAL begin making additional demands like having the City pledge future Inclusionary funds to the project at 0% interest, removing language from Deal Points Memo limiting ability to access future funds, having Planning start work on study to increase the Metro Specific Plan area to encompass this site and pulling its money out of the acquisition financing so that the City assumed all risk. Sidney held firm for at least 3% interest (Industry standard) and was working on pushing back on the removal of AMCAL funds from the deal when an innocuous remark made at a meeting to AMCAL about them “hijacking the process” was used as grounds for dismissal.
So this one-sided $4.7 deal will go before Council on April 7th and if approved AMCAL gets an easy $2 million up front payday with little risk. Plus they will have access to future housing funds which not only is City assuming the greater liability in this deal, but it puts future housing programs and projects at risk if this development becomes a never ending drain due to environmental, funding, financial issues or economic issues. Meanwhile, that same night, decisions will be made on allocating $340,000 in Community Development Block Grant funds (CDBG) that 35 non-profits competed for. Those funds were good enough to have a competitive process but not the Inclusionary and HOME funds that AMCAL is getting? Of course the non-profits don’t have a $2 million payday attached to it either.
This transaction raises so many questions:
*How could Sarmiento and Martinez direct staff on policy without input from the other 5 members? Do those 5 members now have no power and does Sarmiento and Martinez run the City?
*Why was the competitive process approved at FedTech in January and then discarded without full Council input?
*Why are they allowing AMCAL to get their $2 million developer fee without deferring a portion of it as most affordable transactions do? A lot of projects do not even get a full developer fee but then that negotiating leverage was lost.
*Why this expensive building with almost $1 million in relocation costs? It is not a dilapidated building nor was it a City priority like, for instance Minnie Street or the Raitt-Townsend neighborhoods.
*With the increasing number of homeless at the Civic Center, is this the highest, most efficient use of these funds especially with the relocation costs and high developer fee? One of the other developers was pitching a care facility for Veterans. How do you not at least let them compete for housing funds and vouchers especially when so many homeless are Veterans?
*Why the need to rush this through especially when every City Department opposes it?
*Why did the City accept so much liability and risk and not let the developer carry more risk?
I am a mentor to Sidney and I advised him never to work for Santa Ana. Against that advice, to be near his son and his dying mom, Sidney took the job. It is absolutely despicable what they did to this good and passionate man. I feel terrible for not persuading him to stay up north and now will support whoever opposes Sarmiento, and now Martinez if she persists, with as much money as needed.
BTW, in regards to the $2 million payday, it really is in the staff report that I assume will still be released this week if the item is not pulled. $800,000 to be given at close of construction financing, $1.2 million to be given on conversion to permanent financing. This is highly unusual in the world of affordable financing and was only done once recently by the City: in the Related “Triada” development where significant public outreach had to be conducted due to the Lacy lawsuit. With AMCAL not putting any money in the development and walking away with a cool $2 million, what are the chances this turns into another City slum like all so many of those apartments built in the 1980’s? And who could possibly make this developer even close to being held accountable after what happened to the lone city employee who tried?
This is not about “cabals” or “conspiracies”; this is about justice. I hope the other 5 Councilmembers marginalized by these two decide to fight back.
Good questions. The most salient issues seem to be the lack of even pretend equity, and also why the original process was abandoned at all – let alone by the whim of only two of seven votes.
A still no there there. No one will get up in front of council to protest this action. This is SOP for the SA council. I expect that the other council members will go along with this. Unfortunate about Sydney’s family situation – but if it was that important to him to move down here from NoCal he should have just gone along with the cronyism.
Wow. Thanks for the additional details. If what you’re saying proves to be true, this is awfully frightening.
“In January, staff presented at the Financial, Economic Development and Technology (FedTech) committee meeting a competitive process mechanism for release of the Inclusionary Housing Funds.”
That was a really stupid thing to do if you expect to keep your job working for the City of Santa Ana.
“SARMIENTO ENGINEERS FIRING OF NEWLY HIRED HOUSING DIVISION MANAGER”
Where is your proof of this accusation? You don’t have any. How about an explanation, speculation, guess, hearsay ……… you don’t have any of that. You are full of BS.
Why was the post about FedTech committee member David Benavides funneling CDBG funds to his employer Kidsworks just deleted? It has seemed weird that Benavides’ name has been consistently left out as a member of the FedTech committee, and now we know why. I smell a rat, and that rat is David Benavides. Remember Councilmember Benavides’ video encouraging NewSong to come in and buy the Santora building, a deal in which he was involved a real estate agent? No? Probably because they buried that, too.
“Ana” says that the FEDTech committee “currently” has two members, Sarmiento and Martinez? Is or was Benavides also on this committee? If once but no longer, when did he leave? Do we know why? Should be fairly easy for someone (likely Adam, as we don’t seem to have volunteers here) to check.
Benavides was still on the FedTech committee as of last month.
FedTech has 3 Councilmembers on it: Martinez, Sarmiento AND Benavides. Here is a link to the City website PDF of a FedTech agenda that clearly lists his name – http://www.ci.santa-ana.ca.us/coc/documents/agenda_fedt_20150127.pdf
It’s interesting that Ana Tansa has carefully avoided mentioning that fact. It casts a shadow on this “whistleblower’s” credability.
It’s also troublesome that Benevides went from being the chair of Kidworks’ Board of Directors to being their Executive Director. Isn’t that a conflict of interest? Was there a national search? And if there was, what qualifications did Benavides have to win the spot over other candidates?
Finally, if Elected Officials are prohibited from double dipping into city funds by drawing both a salary & grants/funding/contracts for their organizations, then WHY is Benavides squeezing out the biggest chunk of Santa Ana’s CDBG money into Kidworks, his EMPLOYER?
Other organizations with excellent track records in Santa Ana, like the Delhi Center, OCCCA, The Center OC and Serve the People (who serve Santa Ana’s homeless) get NOTHING but Benavides’ Kidworks walks away with $30,000?
Where is the “Justice” with that??
I don’t know anything about Kidsworks being involved. I just answered who the dismissed individual was and why I was told he was let go. It was a bit more credible than someone Ana Tansa who has second or third hand information spreading rumors.
You asked. I answered. How about somebody actually coming to the city and asking instead of playing keyboard cowboy to destroy your favored candidates opposition.
“People in Santa Ana ARE stepping up Zenger.”
That’s nice. Are they using their own names or just passing along anonymous gossip on blogs?
NOTICE! OFF-TOPIC COMMENTS ABOUT BENEVIDES HAVE BEEN DELETED HERE AND MOVED TO THE NEW POST CREATED FOR THAT DISCUSSION.
NEW POST! http://www.orangejuiceblog.com/2015/03/for-those-who-want-to-talk-about-benevides-instead-that-discussion-is-moving-here/
FURTHER OFF-TOPIC COMMENTS ABOUT BENEVIDES AND HIS NONPROFIT WILL JUST BE FLAT-OUT DELETED.
Well we sure stepped into a HOT MESS this morning!
My department supervisor gathered us together and reminded us we were not to visit or comment on websites “at work, on government computers or while on the clock”. Of course he added, we were free do do whatever we wanted on our own time and own devices. Oh and if we choose to comment we should be truthful and use our real name (yeah right).
In keeping with editors desire to have this remain one dimensional, I’ll hold off on anymore except to say the character assasinations have begun and there is rich debate on how and why the 7th was chosen. I think Tansa could speak to that.
The can is open. Watch for worms.
It sounds like what you May have to say about the situation with this particular nonprofit would be on topic, so you are welcome to say it here (when you are away from work.) There is a separate post if you want to say something about David Benavides and his non-profit in the post created for that purpose.
Who is going to be the brave hero SOB to get up in front of the SA Council and present these “allegations” – or rumors or innuendo … or whatever they are ….. – huh? come on now – a lot of brave talk has gone on here – anonymously …….. Who is going to put their face and name to this shit? no takers? ……….. That’s what I thought.
I hope that you realize that you just had a full conversation with yourself, and then because no one spoke up against your point of view while you were composing it, you thought that it was proper for you to declare victory — right?
This may therefore be your most skallywaggy comment ever! Anyone disagree? I THOUGHT SO! Ha!
“I hope that you realize that you just had a full conversation with yourself ..”
Why not? I am the smartest person that I know.
I am the same employee that posted earlier today.
Initially, there was a Sh!t Storm of gossip, by Noon it was done. Poor Sidney, he is being villified. It is an oversimplification however, to say an off the cuff comment was used as “cause”. He was never going to make it. Equally, things didn’t happen quite the way described, but that won’t matter, staff is in damage control mode. I would not be surprised to this whole thing swept under the rug, a favorable article by Michele’s friend and it all goes away. There will be at least one more casualty, but, I am sure you’ll cover that when it happens.
Except perhaps for Sidney Stone being let go this is everyday business at City Hall.
Here’s what I was told this morning:
1) Ana Tansa is in fact, Sidney Stone, who is disgruntled and angry over his embarrassing firing. We are reminded in addition to being a Housing specialist, he is a published fiction writer, quite good at “crafting a narrative”. There is NO mentor.
2) Why the Orange Juice Blog? He said the OC Register might ignore it, The Voice Of OC was in “Michele’s pocket” (I don’t know about that BUT, she is well known for her close reltionship with it’s Santa Ana reporter and is widely viewed as the source of several leaks). He said he Googled Sarmiento and found a negative article, where he first posted this (his) allegation(s).
3) LAWSUIT. He plans to sue the city. What better situation to have a “workers comp/employment attorney who popularized your case. One with a history of filing municipal suits.
4) THIS IS RUMOR/CONJECTURE: He tried to enlist the helpof other council members but was rebuffed, when City Manager and his aide interfered. Shutting him down.
This becoming more of a personell issue than a scandal
That was all fairly obvious from the get-go. And Diamond took the bait – hook, line & sinker. What a doof!
I’ll bet Sidney’s books suck as well.
Sometimes I think that, in addition to being a political hack, you really are actively stupid. Here, I’ll have a conversation with myself, since you seem to like that sort of thing:
Q: What did I say that I wanted to accomplish?
A: To get to the bottom of things.
Q: If this anonymous poster is correct, then have we done so?
A: Apparently so.
I’m still reserving judgment, but taking a plausibly presented charge seriously and then investigating it is not “taking the bait hook line and sinker.” It’s being willing to consider that an act of purported whistleblowing may be just that. “May” — not necessarily “is.” That’s why one investigates.
Is that too subtle for you? Apparently so.
Thanks for the update. Obviously, I can’t take your anonymous comments for gospel — is this all someone’s speculation and inference, or was there a confession, and if he was already fired why was he around to confess? — but what you present here is also plausible. And I note that we haven’t heard back from “Ana” in a couple of days. Maybe we still will.
The prospect that Ana was the disgruntled employee was always present, which is why I pressed him on the question of the presence of any financial interest. The “mentor” thing was odd.
I don’t follow Michele’s “close relationships” and I’m not sure who at the VOC you’re talking about. Obviously (no offense intended) I can’t take your assertions at face value any more than I could Ana’s. I’m interest in where, when, and to whom he allegedly said the things you attribute to him, but I presume that you could not say.
I don’t do Worker’s Comp — and I certainly wouldn’t take a case under these circumstances. If what you say is true, I’ll leave it to another attorney to advise him on whether he has improved or damaged his prospects for such a lawsuit here.
If it’s as you describe, then it’s a pity for him, but I’m glad that there would be no impropriety and no $2 million loss. I expect that the deal will get more scrutiny than it would have before, in any case — and that’s usually a good thing, in much the same way that surprise inspections help to keep people honest. Do keep us updated as events continue to develop.
Well what was the outcome?
No more comments, no Voice Of OC article, it’s like it dried up and went away. Is the City Council reaaly that powerful or do Santa Anan’s just NOT CARE?
If you look three posts up from this one, you’ll see a post that extracted and transferred a bunch of material about David Benevides from this post to that one. For some reason the rest of this discussion ended up transferring to that post as well. If you read it, and especially the comments, you’ll see where things went. I don’t know that “it’s over,” but what’s asserted there would explain why we have heard no more from Ana Atnas. I don’t know if it entirely resolves the merits of the accusations, though.
Ana Tansa. Rhymes – I mean, rhymed – with Tony D’anza.
Also rhymes with banana sanza.
It was much ado over doo-doo.
Oh. So now you are trying to claim expertise!
Fuck off Diamond … a-hole …
I’m impressed — I thought maybe that was too subtle for you.
No chasing Vince for being among the biggest water waster in central OC?