San Bernardino Downtown PBID Raises Concerns Over Costs, Oversight and City Influence

A proposal to establish a Property-Based Improvement District (PBID) in downtown San Bernardino is advancing toward City Council consideration, but its future could depend heavily on whether the city supports paying an annual assessment and using its considerable voting power to help approve the district.

The City of San Bernardino is the largest property owner within the proposed PBID, which would assess downtown property owners to fund supplemental services such as security patrols, sidewalk cleaning, graffiti removal, landscaping, lighting, marketing and public art.

Previous planning documents identified 592 parcels within the proposed district, including 79 owned by the city. Those city-owned properties would carry an estimated annual assessment of $77,566.85 and account for approximately 25.7% of the district’s total assessment weight.

A 2023 feasibility study by Civitas similarly estimated that the city owns about 23% of downtown property. Because PBID ballots are weighted according to each owner’s assessment, the city could have a decisive influence over whether the district is formed.

The PBID discussion between city council is expected to be agendized at the August 19th meeting.

City Manager Eric Levitt said council members must evaluate whether the PBID would provide sufficient value to downtown and whether the city should commit public funds toward its assessment.

“The council needs to have a thoughtful discussion about whether it supports the district, what the priorities should be and whether the proposed services would benefit downtown as a whole,” Levitt told IECN during a July 9th phone call.

Levitt said he does not yet have a clear sense of where council members stand. He also emphasized that an August decision would represent only an initial step in a longer formation process.

The proposal would still require updated assessment figures, additional procedural work and a weighted vote by affected property owners. Because the assessments would need to align with the county’s property tax process, Levitt said collections would not begin until 2027.

Levitt said PBIDs can provide meaningful benefits when they are designed around the needs of a particular community. He previously worked in cities where similar districts funded dedicated staff, beautification projects and enhanced cleaning services.

“I have seen downtowns flourish with PBIDs as part of the broader effort,” Levitt said. “A PBID alone does not make a downtown successful, but it can improve aesthetics, quality of life and the level of service available.”

Public safety has been among the primary benefits cited by supporters of the San Bernardino proposal.

“If we are trying to create a more vibrant downtown, both now and as the area continues to evolve, safety will be critical,” Levitt said.

Realicore Real Estate and Stronger Together Now hosted a July 9 information session at The Pulse in downtown San Bernardino. Business owners, residents and community leaders gathered to learn how the district would operate and to question its potential effects.

Concerns raised during the meeting included transparency, oversight, increased assessments, gentrification and whether larger property owners could overpower smaller stakeholders. Some attendees also questioned whether the district would prioritize businesses over residents and how community members could raise concerns after its formation.

Miriam Nieto, a representative of Just San Bernardino and a community advocate, said residents and tenants are being asked to place considerable trust in a structure that has not yet been fully defined.

“Why should we trust the city or support this blindly when we do not yet know what the structure will do for the downtown community or the tenants who will be here?” Nieto asked.

She also expressed concern that property owners could pass the cost of PBID assessments on to commercial tenants.

Realicore’s David Friedman acknowledged the distrust surrounding the proposal and said organizers should be held accountable by residents, including those who oppose the district.

“Do not simply trust me,” Friedman said. “Hold my feet to the fire and continue participating, whether you support the PBID or oppose it. The community must help ensure it moves in a direction that makes sense for downtown.”

Launchpad Collective’s Yvette Romero said questions about voting power, future investors and protections for smaller stakeholders should be viewed as proactive planning rather than fear.

“These concerns are about creating safeguards and being proactive,” Romero said. “People may come in, invest and want to do things their own way. Addressing that now is the smart thing to do.”

Ruben Mendoza, also with Launchpad Collective, questioned whether the city or other major property owners could use their assessment-based voting power to outweigh smaller owners.

Realicore and Stronger Together Now have said the PBID would supplement, rather than replace, existing municipal services while creating a dedicated organization focused on improving downtown conditions.

The forthcoming council discussion will determine whether the city views its substantial property holdings as a reason to invest in the district or as grounds for greater financial and public scrutiny.