Now that formation of the voter-approved La Jolla maintenance assessment district (MAD) has been at least delayed due to legal complications, the question remains, who will do — and pay for — landscaping in the downtown Village?
The answer is the entity that had previously done it: La Jolla Village Merchants Association.
On Nov. 30, San Diego Judge Randa Trapp ruled the new La Jolla MAD passed by La Jollans in 2016, that would have taken effect in January 2018, did not pass legal muster.
A group known as La Jolla Benefits Association LLC filed a lawsuit against the La Jolla MAD on Dec. 28, 2016, in San Diego Superior Court.
Trapp ruled that an assessed property under the MAD would have to receive a special benefit “over and above that” received by the general public. 
“The general public should not be required to pay for special benefits for the few, and the few specially benefitted should not be subsidized by the general public,” Trapp’s ruling stated.
LJVMA president James Niebling characterized the MAD’s currently being in legal limbo as “a bit of a challenge.”
“The LJVMA has been in full support of Enhance La Jolla (The MAD) and we certainly hope they are able to navigate this legal situation and retain their contract with the City of San Diego,” Niebling said. “Having the MAD in place (would) allow the LJVMA to be much more laser-focused on marketing and special events in order to drive business in La Jolla Village.”
Niebling noted LJVMA “has already made adjustments to our budget for the coming fiscal year to allow for some maintenance of the Village. We believe it is our role to be good stewards of the Village and ensure we always put our best foot forward.”
Added Niebling, “Most importantly, we will need to work to supplement our bid funds wherever possible through donations and contributions to support both a strong maintenance effort and a dynamic marketing campaign. We look forward to another successful year of change and growth for La Jolla Village, and remain hopeful that the Mad will be put into place in the very near future.”
Contacted for comment by La Jolla Village News, Enhance La Jolla spokesperson Bill Tribolet said, “The City of San Diego are the ones that were sued, and will be filing their appeal. Unfortunately, the MAD and the La Jolla community are collateral damage.”
Gerry Braun, the City Attorney’s chief of staff said, “Our office will speak through our filings with the court.”
“At this point, we do not have any information showing an appeal has been filed involving the La Jolla MAD,” Marisela Serena, executive secretary for San Diego Superior Court, said Feb. 6.
“A number of La Jolla property owners opposed the formation of the LJMAD for the very reasons cited in the recent Superior Court decision,” said La Jolla Village landlord Lincoln Foster. “The Judge determined the LJMAD violated the California Constitution. … Although property owners in the proposed LJMAD districts are already assessed for some of the same services (general benefits), the LJMAD proposed to assess these property owners a ‘second time’ for what we already pay through property taxes. In fact, the LJVMA also makes an assessment for some of these same services, so the LJMAD would actually impose a tax in triplicate.”
Added Foster, “There are numerous alternative methods to raise funds without formation of a MAD without adding another tax on property owners, which for commercial properties is always passed on to tenants, already paying high rents.”
Foster suggested “alternative funding methods could include parking meters … Parking meter revenue would dwarf the income contemplated from the LJMAD assessments, without taxing property owners. … Alternate money-raising opportunities should be implemented, and are much fairer and equitable than assessing property owners with a duplicative and inequitable tax. This is where Enhance La Jolla’s efforts should be focused.”
Foster expressed confidence that “the court will deny a new hearing if requested by the city because the facts have not changed and there are no new facts.”
But Foster conceded, “We (MAD opponents) realize any court is of its own mind and may reconsider its initial determination.”