Bradley Vows No Relocation for Owners of Homes in Watts : Redevelopment: Mayor responds to protest of study calling for the elimination of urban blight. Some residents say his position isn’t strong enough.

Reacting to a storm of community protests, Mayor Tom Bradley pledged Wednesday to oppose any redevelopment plan in Watts that would displace homeowners.

“The bottom line,” Bradley said, “is if you live in Watts in a single-family residence, you don’t need to fear losing your home. It won’t happen. That is my commitment to you.”

The mayor’s promise--grounded in his veto authority over City Council actions--appears to run counter to the language of the city-sponsored feasibility study, which lays the foundation for the Watts project. The study calls for the elimination of urban blight through “selective demolition . . . and relocation”.

Officials of the city’s Community Redevelopment Agency, which is in charge of the project, said they did not know how a broad prohibition against eminent domain would affect the project, which is designed to bring new industrial, commercial and cultural facilities to the impoverished community.

“Where and how those things will be built, where the new commercial and industrial areas will be . . . that will all have to be decided and decided by the residents themselves,” said Robert Tague, the CRA’s chief of operations.

Bradley also announced at a press conference that he had postponed the first phase of the Watts project--the period when the planning is done--for at least six months. The mayor’s action could delay groundbreaking for the project for two years or more, according to CRA officials.

The postponement came in response to angry criticism that the city was trying to ram through the project before the people of Watts had any idea of what was in store for them. Bradley said he agreed with the complaints of many residents that they had not been given enough time to learn about the impact of what would be the largest redevelopment project ever undertaken by the city.

Several Watts residents attending the press conference praised the mayor for postponing the project, but said his position on eminent domain was not strong enough.

“We should have a law passed by the City Council barring eminent domain,” said Andreattee Jones, a resident and education coordinator at a neighborhood youth center. “No one should have to worry about getting kicked out of their house.”

Eminent domain refers to a longstanding government prerogative to condemn private property when it serves the public good. It has been invoked to build everything from freeways to schools. It would be a more ticklish issue in the Watts project, however, if houses were to be condemned for commercial development.

Jones and others said Bradley’s promise to protect homeowners offered slim consolation to the thousands of renters who live in one of the densest concentrations of public housing projects in the city.

Bradley said the fate of the tenants should be decided during the planning phase. “The community is going to give the answer on that matter,” he said.

Appearing with Bradley, the two City Council members who represent Watts sought to offer tenants more reassurance.

“It would not be in my plans to diminish the total amount of affordable housing,” said Councilwoman Joan Milke Flores.

“No residentially zoned properties, period,” said Councilman Robert Farrell, when asked where he stood on the question of tearing down rental buildings.

The official assurances were not enough to deter a group of Watts residents from pressing a lawsuit against the city and the CRA. After filing the suit Monday, the plaintiffs returned to court Wednesday, seeking to enjoin the city from using eminent domain in Watts. If successful, the suit also would diminish the city’s authority over the Watts Project Area Committee--a citizens’ group that will be formed to oversee project planning.

Critics have argued that the City Council violated state redevelopment law by giving itself the power to appoint 11 of the 25 committee members. Control of the committee is emerging as an important issue in the redevelopment dispute, with critics fearful that the City Council would overload the committee with developers and businessmen.

The Watts project is significant not only for its size--about 2,000 acres of South-Central Los Angeles--but for what it represents. It is the first comprehensive approach to rebuilding Watts since the rioting 25 years ago. Despite periodic attempts to upgrade the community, Watts has remained one of the poorest, most run-down and dangerous parts of the city.

City officials had counted on an enthusiastic reception after spending the last 18 months developing a broad outline for the project. In addition to financing new buildings, the proposed revitalization would pour $200 million in public and private capital into neighborhood social services such as job training, drug counseling and day care.

But residents argued that they had been kept in the dark until just before the City Council gave preliminary approval in June. Moreover, at community meetings last month, officials did little to allay people’s fears of losing their homes. Many people said they were suspicious of the city’s sudden interest in Watts after years of comparative inattention.

“Why the sudden interest now? Where were you 25 years ago?” asked one resident at the press conference. “Is it because of the Metro Rail or the Century Freeway that you are interested in remaking our community.”

Even without a redevelopment project, Watts’ years as an urban backwater may be over, the result of a network of new rail and freeway routes that crisscross the community on the way to downtown Los Angeles, Long Beach and the city’s main airport and harbor.

Some residents suspect that city officials would like to turn Watts into a bedroom annex for downtown office workers. Others worry that they will be squeezed out by a commercial and industrial renaissance that will offer few jobs that local people are capable of filling.