Town Center: Horton's conflict-of-interest
Maybe you thought issues associated with the two-decade effort to redevelop the Town Center couldn’t get more complicated. Or more controversial. Or more mind-numbing.
But they have, especially regarding when Councilwoman Jan Horton can cast her vote on Old Town redevelopment, since her residence is within 500 feet of three potential project areas on the eastside of Lakeview Avenue, north of Yorba Linda Boulevard.
The law, as administered by the state Fair Political Practices Commission, is clear. The “one-penny rule” disqualifies Horton from voting if there’s any impact—positive or negative—on the value of her Cedar Avenue home, estimated to be worth $810,000.
Of course, Horton could vote if she proves a redevelopment decision would have zero financial effect on her property, which she tried to show by submitting two appraisals claiming development on two nearby sites wouldn’t alter the value of her home.
The two sites include Lakeview Avenue at Altrudy Lane, proposed for higher-density residential, a fire station or commercial, and the Stater Brothers market, suggested for “simple remodel” or “complete teardown and reconstruction.”
There’s no dispute that development on a third site—the vacant “strawberry field” between the Altrudy property and Stater Brothers—would impact Horton’s home.
However, in an April 6 response to Horton’s “request for advice,” the FPPC dismissed the appraisals for various reasons and said the reports “cannot be relied upon” as proof redevelopment decisions on the sites won’t impact the value of her property.
Under a “segmentation” process, Horton could vote on projects located more than 500 feet from her residence, unless the projects are “inextricably linked to the entire plan.”
A 2007 letter from the FPPC stated: “some decisions may be too inter-related to be considered separately. If the resolution of one decision will effectively determine the result of the other decision…Horton must disqualify as to both.”
Discussion at the April 20 City Council meeting regarding the cost of seeking FPPC advice added controversy to the issue. Horton has said several times she retained her own legal counsel to query the FPPC, but the City Attorney also has been involved.
Horton said she’s paid her lawyer more than $5,000, with the city spending $8,400. Mayor John Anderson said the city outlays violate a 1997 council policy, and, with Councilwoman Nancy Rikel, said Horton should reimburse the $8,400 to the city.
However, a later Horton statement disputed Anderson’s interpretation of the 1997 policy and said the City Attorney bills “are the result of city-generated costs, not at my request.”
Readers seeking more details—or a sure cure for insomnia—can visit www.fppc.ca.gov and read 35 pages of lawyerly legalize on the Horton situation (click on “advice letters”).
But they have, especially regarding when Councilwoman Jan Horton can cast her vote on Old Town redevelopment, since her residence is within 500 feet of three potential project areas on the eastside of Lakeview Avenue, north of Yorba Linda Boulevard.
The law, as administered by the state Fair Political Practices Commission, is clear. The “one-penny rule” disqualifies Horton from voting if there’s any impact—positive or negative—on the value of her Cedar Avenue home, estimated to be worth $810,000.
Of course, Horton could vote if she proves a redevelopment decision would have zero financial effect on her property, which she tried to show by submitting two appraisals claiming development on two nearby sites wouldn’t alter the value of her home.
The two sites include Lakeview Avenue at Altrudy Lane, proposed for higher-density residential, a fire station or commercial, and the Stater Brothers market, suggested for “simple remodel” or “complete teardown and reconstruction.”
There’s no dispute that development on a third site—the vacant “strawberry field” between the Altrudy property and Stater Brothers—would impact Horton’s home.
However, in an April 6 response to Horton’s “request for advice,” the FPPC dismissed the appraisals for various reasons and said the reports “cannot be relied upon” as proof redevelopment decisions on the sites won’t impact the value of her property.
Under a “segmentation” process, Horton could vote on projects located more than 500 feet from her residence, unless the projects are “inextricably linked to the entire plan.”
A 2007 letter from the FPPC stated: “some decisions may be too inter-related to be considered separately. If the resolution of one decision will effectively determine the result of the other decision…Horton must disqualify as to both.”
Discussion at the April 20 City Council meeting regarding the cost of seeking FPPC advice added controversy to the issue. Horton has said several times she retained her own legal counsel to query the FPPC, but the City Attorney also has been involved.
Horton said she’s paid her lawyer more than $5,000, with the city spending $8,400. Mayor John Anderson said the city outlays violate a 1997 council policy, and, with Councilwoman Nancy Rikel, said Horton should reimburse the $8,400 to the city.
However, a later Horton statement disputed Anderson’s interpretation of the 1997 policy and said the City Attorney bills “are the result of city-generated costs, not at my request.”
Readers seeking more details—or a sure cure for insomnia—can visit www.fppc.ca.gov and read 35 pages of lawyerly legalize on the Horton situation (click on “advice letters”).
posted by Jim Drummond at 12:00 AM
<< Home