Disclosure: Go the Extra Mile

A dispute developed recently over Santa Ana’s much-anticipated Minnie Street urban renewal project when Mayor Miguel A. Pulido was accused of not properly disclosing his out-of-town relationship with a developer. Pulido appears to have done some things right but not to have gone as far as he ought to in order to put to rest any questions about what he disclosed. The controversy serves as a reminder to local officials to be vigilant about areas where private business interests may come home to create problems for worthy city projects.

A lawsuit filed by an immigrant rights group charged that Pulido failed to detail his business ties with an investor whose company could receive millions for the revitalization project. Pulido did recuse himself in the City Council’s recent approval of an $8.3-million bond issue to buy and renovate eight run-down apartment complexes. The buildings are owned by a company headed by Pulido’s associate in unrelated real estate deals in Garden Grove, Kris Kakkar. The question is whether Pulido adequately revealed his ties to Kakkar in financial disclosure forms filed with the state Fair Political Practices Commission.

Pulido says he did nothing wrong and that he believes he filled out all the right forms. But while he abstained in the recent city vote, a year ago he approved an agreement granting money to the project, and that raises the question of a possible FPPC violation. Attention focuses on whether Pulido should have disclosed his partnerships with Kakkar in Garden Grove on properties, rather than merely filing an amendment with the FPPC stating that he had a stake in two properties in Garden Grove.

It certainly would have been proper for the mayor to indicate unequivocally his relationship in Garden Grove with a major player in Santa Ana redevelopment. It would be a shame if an important redevelopment project somehow were jeopardized by a failure to specifically connect some dots. The Minnie Street development project, called Cornerstone Village, has held out the prospect of giving a troubled neighborhood a needed boost. For almost 40 years, the area has been a problem, and various interest groups have worked hard to make it a better place. Tenants, building owners, police, city officials and a community and church group have worked to revitalize the area.

While some activists are complaining that residents will be driven out, the city has given assurances to the contrary. The community clearly has the will for improvement.

For public officials, there has been enough publicized controversy over politicians and FPPC requirements in Orange County in recent years to suggest that it is always better to go the extra mile in disclosure.