|
|
|
|
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Holly Park HulabalooMeasure G Discussion Becomes Heated10/8/2004 -- The October 7th meeting of the Holly Park Homeowner’s Association proceeded calmly through its agenda until the last item, Discussion of Measure G. The president of the Association, Paulette Francis, gave a brief presentation of her research on redevelopment agencies, indicating that she is in favor of Measure G. She then introduced Councilman Steve Bradford, and smilingly cautioned the audience that since he is a politician, they should be careful not to believe everything he said. Councilman Bradford began to tout the advantages of having a redevelopment agency. Suddenly there was an outburst from the audience as a woman began shouting that the City was not going to take her property except over her dead body. She shouted that her family had lived there for five generations and would live there for five generations more. Mrs. Francis moved to restore order and set rules that each person who wanted to speak would raise their hand and be recognized by the chair. No one was allowed to interrupt another person while speaking, although Councilman Bradford did interrupt people on several occasions and had to be reminded of this rule. Councilman Bradford stated that the reason the City needed a redevelopment agency was to remedy the debt created by past City Councils who had created the First Time Home Buyers program and an insurance program. Both of these programs caused the majority of the debt Gardena now finds itself in, according to Councilman Bradford. Ingrid Tsukiyama was the Deputy City Treasurer during those years and stood to defend the past Council’s actions. Steve Sherman, co-chair of the No GRAB Committee (http://www.nograb.org/), and his wife Cheral Sherman attempted to speak against the redevelopment agency proposal but were cut off by both Mrs. Francis and Councilman Bradford. Mrs. Sherman did get the topic of eminent domain introduced and Councilman Bradford stated emphatically that no one would lose their home, although he could only speak for himself, not the other councilmen. He said the City has the power of eminent domain right now and just used it against a landowner, even paying the landowner $11 million dollars for his property when it had only been appraised at $8 million dollars. He said no one objected to that use of eminent domain. Mrs. Sherman pointed out that the power of eminent domain the City currently has is only for public purposes and that a redevelopment agency would give the City expanded power of eminent domain to take private property and sell or give it to private developers. William Haase, a resident in South Gardena in the Home Business zoned area, pointed out that his neighborhood has a mix of residential and commercial uses, similar to what is done in Europe. Councilman Bradford responded that Gardena is also interested in developments like this and in fact, the City of Hawthorne currently has such a project. Mr. Haase stated that his home is very nice and not blighted; he wanted to know why it was included in the Redevelopment Project Study Area but Councilman Bradford changed the subject. Later on, Mrs. Terri Haase asked Councilman Bradford the same question, why their neighborhood and a 200 unit senior mobile home park were included in the redevelopment project study area. This time Councilman Bradford said that a consulting firm had been hired to determine the redevelopment area and “they went through the City with blinders on”, as if including the neighborhood and mobile home park in South Gardena was a mistake. According to Steve Sherman, two City employees actually were the ones who determined which areas were included in the redevelopment project study area and provided the information to the City’s consultant. The City Council then approved it. One woman, whose home obviously is not in the Redevelopment Project Study Area, stood to say she was confused by all the fuss. She said if all the surrounding cities have redevelopment agencies, why shouldn’t Gardena have one? Councilman Bradford enthusiastically endorsed this position. He said that one doesn’t hear of people in Hawthorne and Lawndale screaming about their homes being taken. Perhaps that is because their City Councils were wise enough not to include residential areas in their redevelopment project study areas. Mrs. Sherman pointed out that the Lawndale redevelopment agency does not have the power of eminent domain. Mrs. Haase stated that she is opposed to the City having a redevelopment agency because it is another layer of government that has the power to issue debt without voter approval and the power of eminent domain over private property for private purposes. Councilman Bradford said that he respected that position but disagreed. He further claimed that a redevelopment agency is just a tool and that the City of Gardena may never use it. He also stated that it would take several years for enough money to build up from the tax increment for the redevelopment agency to have enough money in its budget for any projects. However, he did not mention that the redevelopment agency would be able to get millions of dollars very quickly by floating bonds that need no voter approval. The meeting, having gone past its normal ending time of 8:30PM by 30 minutes, was then adjourned.
For More Information Contact: |
|
Send mail to
nograb@pacbell.net with
questions or comments about this web site.
|
