South Gate City Council has unanimously voted to move forward with an anti-street vendor ordinance. At the June 26th, 2023 meeting, dozens of community members spoke up against the ordinance both in-person and over Zoom.

The top target of public criticism was Vice Mayor Gil Hurtado, who touts on his official Council profile that he has been President of the South Gate Junior Athletic Association (SGJAA) for nearly three decades. The SGJAA has an agreement with the City to use the concession stand at South Gate Park, and the ordinance would specifically prohibit stationary vendors within 100 feet of the park.

Speakers rally against Hurtado

Referring to Hurtado, the first speaker, identifying as Ryan, said “You don’t pay pay rent for the parks and yet you charge the children money in order to be able to play sports. You are a criminal because you are trying to force the street vendors and their families into homelessness while your pockets continue to grow with money.”

Edin Enamorado continued with the criticism of Hurtado, saying “Under the California Constitution you’re supposed to pass laws that benefit the public, not to benefit one man who doesn’t want competition!”

Speaker South Central Audit brought up the $1,000 fine for street vendors who don’t comply with the ordinance, saying “you guys don’t understand what that ticket’s going to do to the people. This clown ass lawyer that was just jumping on the mike saying ‘oh it’s not going to affect them’—because that fool don’t have Mexican roots. He don’t need to apply for a citizenship application.”

Applications for citizenship currently cost $1,170 and the lawyer in question is James Eckart, who is a contractor City Prosecutor for South Gate. He was alleged by audience members to live in La Mirada “in a four bedroom house with a pool, on our community’s dime.” Eckart declined to participate in person and appeared only via Zoom inside a car.

Dozens of speakers continued to speak agains the ordinance, and only one comment was made in support of it. Speakers who spoke in Spanish faced difficulty with the translation services, saying “Why is this process not more fair and transparent, why are you going after the Spanish-speaking, working class, undocumented community?”

A speaker identifying as Jas brought up the issue of nutrition, noting that “Chick-fil-a is coming in to give our community diabetes. Leave the vendors alone, they know how to cook our food in a way that helps our health.”

Police clear room, possible undercover officers spotted

The passion from the audience led the Council to order the room cleared by the South Gate Police Department. At this point, audience members started referring to four individuals who did not speak during public comments and who had been sitting distributed evenly throughout the room as possible or even likely undercover police. Three of them congregated in the back of the room as it was being cleared, and all four congregated in the hallway. One was spotted using an alleged police radio.

Meeting continues on Zoom, outside elected officials comment, Brown Act violations take place

As the police cleared the City Hall of members of the public, the meeting continued inside and (some) speakers on Zoom were allowed to make a comment.

Elected officials in other cities were among those who called in to oppose. The first caller on Zoom, El Monte City Clerk Gabriel Ramirez, said that the meeting procedures and translation process violate the Brown Act. He said the ordinance represents “classicism—Google it if you don’t know what that means. We’re in a crisis of being one paycheck away from being homeless. It’s time to stop attacking street vendors.”

Also calling in was Yesenia Cuarenta, a Paramount School Board Member (parts of South Gate are in the Paramount Unified School District). Bringing up issues of mental health in the community, she said “I ask you as an elected official, as a teacher, please table this item and find ways to further support vendors.”

At least one speaker, Tima, was denied the right to make a comment on Zoom, with the administrator handling the meeting saying “I see your hand but I’m not answering any more calls.” Because the speaker had followed all established processes and instructions, this violated the Brown Act.

Police stop member of public who had attended meeting

As members of the public left City Hall, at least one, identifying as Wendy, was pulled over by police. Edin Enamorado’s Instagram footage shows that the excuse given was tinted windows, but the window had been down.

The South Gate officers refused to provide their name and badge numbers when asked by Enamorado. “This is all vindictive, all because of the Council meeting. You’re targeting her. This is what Gil Hurtado is doing in City of South Gate, vindictively stopping my girlfriend.”

Enamorado repeatedly emphasized the actions of Hurtado and the other Council Members: “They passed an ordinance asking for IDs. They want the vendors to have their IDs on their chest, they’re asking for their social security. And if you don’t have that, they won’t let you vend.”

Later that night, Enamorado and others protested Hurtado, demanding justice for street vendors. Simultaneously, the actions of the Council were widely condemn on social media, with regional activist and (former) Assembly candidate Maria Estrada saying she supports protests at the home of the Council Members.

Hurtado’s rejects allegations, SGJAA calls off activities, community investigates IRS forms

At the conclusion of the meeting, Hurtado rejected the concerns of members of the public, saying “I don’t profit from the activities of SGJAA.” The Council then voted unanimously to move forward with the ordinance, with slight modifications to the distance requirements.

Later in the evening, Enamorado visited Hurtado’s house, demanding justice for street vendors, and by the morning, SGJAA had called off activities, saying to parents “due to safety concerns, all games, practices, meetings, office, and snack bar will be cancelled and closed until further notice, thank you.”

The nature of the “safety concerns” was unknown as of the time of publication, but we note that Cesar, a member of the South Gate community sent us public documents related to SGJAA, and these documents lead to more questions.

Who is truly in charge of SGJAA? Are they compensated?

Non-profits must file form 990 with the IRS. This form asks for the names of members of the officers of the organization, as well as their compensation (if any). For example, in its 2019 form, the Cudahy Youth Foundation listed several individuals, including Edin Enamorado, as officers. Each is listed is receiving $0 compensation.

However, for the same tax year, SGJAA does not list any officers nor any compensation. An inspection of several years of 990 forms shows that this has been a pattern over the years.

Also noteworthy is that Cudahy Youth Foundation reports $0 spent on “professional fundraising fees” and SGJAA reports $60,748. Although a full audit would be necessary, according to Kahn, Litwin, & Reza, a leading consulting company for nonprofits, says “Professional fundraising fees have been a source of various abuses over the years and the IRS is especially concerned about the amount of professional fundraising fees as evidenced by its prominent reporting on page 1 of the Form 990.”

It is clear in the forms provided by SGJAA to the IRS that these “professional fundraising fees” make up the majority of the expenses made by SGJAA. This appears to be at odds with industry practices, and is the kind of situation identified by Kahn, Litwin & Reza, as possible places for abuse.

The role of Hurtado in SGJAA and the stakes for the community

Despite Hurtado’s name being missing from the IRS documents, it is clear from the organization’s social media postings that he occupies a central role. He appeared prominently in the organization’s Christmas 2021 greeting, and he says on his City Council profile that he is the President of the organization.

Regardless of Hurtado’s possible conflicts of interest, community members are expected to continue to opposite the ordinance, which was unanimously supported by the Council. At stake is the practice of street vending as the community has known it for generations.