$77.4M in Taxpayer Exposure — Built on Flawed Numbers
This image is to scale. An 8-story metal tower next to a house on 14th Street.
Documents show undisclosed communications and political relationships!
Hit this button now to send a letter
March 23, 2026 — Final day for public objections to HUD before federal funds are released.
The City told the taxpayers that there would be no cost to us. That was a lie!
1402 Wilshire Blvd (Corner of 14th & Wilshire)
Iconic building will be demolished by the City!
What about the safety of our kids? This is located 1.5 blocks away from Lincoln Middle School.
You lose parking. You lose a beloved business. You lose safety. You get the bill.
Documented Facts:
The same pattern repeats itself across every aspect of this deal — and Santa Monica taxpayers are left holding the bag.
Federal grant never came through. Tax credits lost. Timeline pushed back.
Lawsuit hand-delivered December 17. HCHC never told lenders.
Venice Dell: 53% cost overrun. Same developer, same executive, same conduct.
Despite documented failures, HCHC receives another chance — and $13.5M.
Unlimited gap financing authorized. Final taxpayer liability: unknown.
What due diligence was performed before committing taxpayer money to a developer with this track record?
Who benefits from these decisions?
This is why federal authorities—FBI, HUD OIG, U.S. Attorney—must investigate the relationships, communications, and financial interests behind this decision.
Stop this now, or Santa Monica risks losing the integrity of its process and the trust of its residents!
City gave away $6M in land + committed $13.5M taxpayer funds to developer Hollywood Community Housing Corporation (HCHC)
Three officials with conflicts of interest approved it anyway — motion maker, seconder, and a third who took campaign cash from the service provider
The deal assumed a federal grant that never came through — taxpayers had to bail it out with $13.5M
City never did proper environmental review before signing — used a legal shortcut now being challenged in court
Federal deadline is March 23 — to protect our taxpayer dollars and transparency.
At the January 13, 2026 City Council meeting, City leadership acknowledged that the HCHC DDA is under active review. The City is aware of the ongoing litigation, the three documented conflicts of interest, and the 2500+ residents who oppose this project. The Council's own direction was to "ensure that we engage in good governance practices and revote on all items consistent with the FPPC ruling." The HCHC matter is being assessed by staff — yet no funds have been clawed back and the federal RROF is proceeding.
HUD must accept objections when the responsible entity committed funds before environmental clearance or omitted required steps. The public record establishes all five grounds below.
The People Concern (TPC) — the project's service operator — has documented performance issues:
Tribes contacted February 23, 2026 — 9 days before FONSI. The Gabrielino Tongva responded the same day citing proximity to a recorded Native American village. FONSI issued 9 days later with zero follow-up.
36 CFR §800.4(b)(1)Three councilmembers voted December 17, 2024 with undisclosed conflicts. Under Petrovich v. City of Sacramento (2001), a single conflicted vote can void a quasi-judicial action. FPPC complaints are filed and on record.
FPPC §84308 / §87100City committed $13.5M and signed a 55-year ground lease on December 17, 2024 — 14 months before the FONSI was issued March 6, 2026. The Environmental Assessment wasn't prepared until January 2026.
24 CFR §58.22 ViolationNoise assessment used pre-pandemic 2019 traffic data. First-floor outdoor area sits at exactly 65 dBA DNL — the precise HUD "Normally Unacceptable" boundary. Undercount places elderly residents in a hazardous noise zone.
HUD Noise Policy Non-ComplianceSanta Monicans for Renters' Rights (SMRR) — one of Santa Monica's strongest pro-housing, pro-tenant organizations — warned City officials in writing, with numbers and citations, that this project was built on an unsound financial foundation.
When SMRR's warnings are combined with three conflicted votes, undisclosed ex parte communications, and continued action after formal notice — the City's exposure is documented, foreseeable, and cumulative.
FPPC complaints are filed. All evidence is public record.
All documents are part of the public record. Share with neighbors, representatives, and federal agencies.
One click sends your objection to all recipients simultaneously. Personalize it with your name and address before sending. Please add the website: https://smtransparency2.netlify.app/ to see the evidence.
Share this campaign:
A: No. This challenges whether the process was legal and whether taxpayer money is protected. It keeps the city and council accountable. It protects the right of Santa Monica residents and the city.
A: Three officials with conflicts of interest voted to commit $19.5M in public assets (cash + land). Under California law (Petrovich v. Sacramento, 2001), even one conflicted vote can void the entire quasi-judicial action.
A: HUD is a separate federal agency. Your objection creates a federal record that HUD must review before releasing funds. The more voices on record, the harder it is for federal agencies to ignore procedural violations.