Montebello Voters Reject Eminent Domain Proposals

After more than six months of divisive campaigning, voters on Tuesday overwhelmingly rejected a City Council bid to grant the Community Redevelopment Agency land-taking power in South Montebello.

“The people have spoken,” said Larry Salazar, who led the campaign to defeat three proposed ordinances. The City Council originally approved the ordinances, but then called the special election under pressure from opponents of eminent domain.

“The community has been sending this message to the council since last year. Tonight they spoke,” Salazar said, as other campaign workers jubilantly shouted and blew whistles in the council chambers when the final tally was recorded near midnight.

Conceded Defeat

Supporters of the three ballot measures, led by Mayor William O. Nighswonger and council members Kathy Salazar, Art Payan and Arnold Glasman, conceded defeat and admitted that eminent domain is an unpopular issue among voters.

Under state law, redevelopment agencies can use eminent domain to condemn properties in areas considered blighted to promote commercial development. The agencies, however, must pay fair market value for the properties.

“It’s been an uphill issue to begin with,” Glasman said in a telephone interview on Wednesday morning. “It is an extremely emotional issue.”

Councilwoman Salazar, who is not related to Larry Salazar, added: “The voters of the city chose to keep things as they are. We feel very good about the effort we put forward.”

The three ballot measures, labeled Proposition A, B, and C, were rejected by a 3-1 ratio. About 23% of registered voters turned out to decide whether the Redevelopment Agency should have condemnation power over the 361-acre Montebello Economic Revitalization Project (MERP) and the 286-acre South Montebello Industrial Redevelopment Project (SMIRP).

Unlike many Southeast cities, Montebello’s Redevelopment Agency cannot exercise eminent domain in a redevelopment area unless given the power by the council or the voters.

Supporters have said that the power of eminent domain was necessary to spur commercial revitalization in the industrial and commercial sections of South Montebello. Twenty-three housing units would have been affected. Supporters also claimed that eminent domain would help the city overcome ongoing budget problems.

Opponents have argued that agencies often use eminent domain unfairly to take property from small business owners and residents and give it to large developers. A coalition of South Montebello citizens groups also opposed the eminent domain plan, they said, because it would have increased traffic, noise and pollution in their neighborhood.

‘Glad It’s Over’

“It’s been a long fight. I’m glad it’s over,” said Larry Salazar, a South Montebello resident.

But it is far from over, local politicians said after the special election.

The defeat has set the tone for what is sure to be a bitter election campaign, officials predicted. Three council seats will be on the ballot in November, and two anti-eminent domain leaders have already announced that they would run for office.

The defeat signifies a public vote of no-confidence in a majority of the council, opponents said. And many voters interviewed Tuesday agreed.

Robert Valdiviez made a quick detour on the way to the grocery store to record his disappointment in the City Council.

“I voted NO, NO, NO, all the way down the line,” Valdiviez said emphatically.

“The very idea of confiscating property is a wrong principle,” said Valdiviez, 66, who has lived in North Montebello for 28 years. “The City Council hasn’t been listening to people.”

“I just don’t think the City Council has done things right,” said Mark Kazarian, 23, as he prepared to go to the polls from his 3rd Street home. “There’s too much development as it is,” he said.

This week’s special election, the city’s first in more than 30 years, was urged by a citizens group after four of five council members approved ordinances last November giving the agency condemnation power in MERP and SMIRP. There are 444 truck lots and storage sites in the two redevelopment areas. Eminent domain supporters have said that the city would benefit financially if those truck and storage areas were replaced with shopping centers and movie theaters.

Opponents, led by Larry Salazar and former Councilman William M. Molinari, launched a successful petition drive early this year to force the special election. Opponents have been harshly critical of Nighswonger, Payan, Salazar and Glasman for supporting eminent domain.

Councilman Edward C. Pizzorno was the only council member to vote against the eminent domain ordinances. He actively campaigned against them during the past four weeks.

Blood Bath Predicted

“It’s going to be a blood bath,” Councilman Art Payan said about the coming campaign. The eminent domain campaign was filled with charges of improprieties, with each side accusing the other of lying to the public and using scare tactics.

Of the four council members who supported eminent domain, only Glasman faces reelection. Opponent Pizzorno also faces reelection, and Nighswonger has announced that he will not seek another term.

Glasman, who was elected in 1985, said he already is making plans to launch his reelection campaign.

“Eminent domain is just one issue,” he said. “I know they are going to try to paint me as the bad guy. That’s their style.”

The eminent domain issue reached its emotional peak when opponents attempted to force a recall of the four council members in February.

Recall leaders Larry Salazar and community activist Shirley Garcia failed to gather enough signatures. Both Salazar and Garcia announced on Tuesday that they will seek to fill the vacancy left by Nighswonger and to oust Glasman.

They said the victory shows that the council members were out of touch with the voters.

“We knew all along who the mainstream was,” Garcia said. “They said that we were a handful of arm-chair critics. But the mainstream has spoken.”

Lawsuits Pending

Meanwhile, former Councilman Molinari, who founded the 800-member South Montebello Area Residents Together (SMART), said that members will consult with attorneys on whether to proceed with two lawsuits filed last year to block passage of eminent domain ordinances.

Last week, Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Miriam A. Vogel denied the group’s request to invalidate two environmental impact reports that were prepared last year to measure the impact of commercial development in MERP and SMIRP.

Atty. Dale L. Gronemeier said last week that he would consider appealing the judge’s decision.

Another lawsuit, which alleges improprieties when the council initially approved the eminent domain ordinances, had been on hold until this week’s election. Molinari said a decision whether to pursue the two lawsuits will be made next week.

Election Results

Montebello

26 of 26 precincts. 23.2% turnout.

PROPOSITION A Shall Ordinance 1971 authorizing the Community Redevelopment Agency to acquire real property in the Montebello Economic Revitalization Project area by eminent domain be adopted?

Vote % No 4,005 79.5 Yes 1,029 20.5

PROPOSITION B Shall Ordinance 1972 authorizing the Community Redevelopment Agency to acquire real property in the Montebello Industrial Revitalization Project area by eminent domain be adopted?

Vote % No 3,989 79.2 Yes 1,043 20.8

PROPOSITION C Shall the ordinance be adopted providing that ordinances 1971 and 1972, if adopted, may be amended or repealed only by a majority of voters and not by City Council action?

Vote % No 3,483 69.3 Yes 1,545 30.7