Murky Limits on Redevelopment Funding Spark Dispute : Police: Some civic activists want to use the money to hire law enforcement personnel. But city officials say it would not be appropriate under state law.

Most everyone in Hollywood agrees that the blighted tourist mecca needs more police officers.

But how to pay for them is a different matter.

Recently, Hollywood activists and city officials have been at odds about whether redevelopment money can be used for increased police presence.

On one side of the issue are city redevelopment officials. They say there is nothing in the state’s Redevelopment Code that would allow any of the $922 million expected to be raised in the 30-year Hollywood redevelopment plan to be used for hiring more police officers.

On the other side are some Hollywood community groups, activists and redevelopment lawyers, who say there is nothing in the state’s redevelopment law that specifically prohibits the money from being used in such a manner, especially if the redevelopment plan for Hollywood is amended to include such a provision.

“It sounds novel,” said a skeptical Ed Telfeyan, senior consultant to the state Assembly’s Housing and Community Development Committee. “Normally, redevelopment money doesn’t go to pay public servants. But I’d need to know the details.”

The disagreement seems to hinge on one part of the state Community Redevelopment Law, Section 33678, which says no redevelopment funds can be used “for the purpose of paying for employee or contractual services of any local governmental agency unless such services are directly related to the purpose” of redevelopment.

What the argument really revolves around is the clamor for something to be done about the crime problem in Hollywood. That issue has intensified in recent months, after a sharp increase in violent crime and reports of an influx of feuding gang members.

In the past, the city’s Community Redevelopment Agency has used redevelopment money for police-related capital projects, such as a police community service center in Chinatown and a mobile booking van downtown, CRA spokesman Marc Littman said.

But using redevelopment money to hire police officers or pay overtime “can’t be done,” Littman said. “The legislature would have to change the state redevelopment law.” He said the idea “comes up constantly” when city councils in the Los Angeles area and elsewhere look for funds to alleviate budget crunches.

Peter Detwiler, staff consultant to the state Senate’s Local Government Committee, agreed with Littman’s interpretation in this case. “I can’t think of a statutory rationale that would permit that expenditure, and that is the advice I’ve given to redevelopment officials.”

Dov Lesel, an assistant city attorney who handles redevelopment issues for the city and CRA, said the law is far too unclear to rule out that possibility.

Although the law is clear in prohibiting redevelopment money from being used for “routine” city services, he said, state law describes redevelopment as “a jumble of all sorts of things,” including efforts to decrease crime in blighted areas, Lesel said.

The law is so gray that the city could “arguably” fund the police officers if officials could prove such patrols directly furthered the redevelopment of the area and if the services were considered “unique and necessary,” Lesel said.

Lesel said the law on redevelopment mostly describes it as “doing things to buildings and spaces,” not providing services. “But,” he said, “there is no definitive answer.”

For instance, the CRA was allowed to spend money on mounted police in the Central Business District redevelopment area during the Olympics because it was not considered a regular city service, Lesel said.

Some community leaders are calling on the city to do whatever it takes to get more police on the street. And, they argue, increased police presence in the area should be an integral part of the redevelopment effort, which is designed to give Hollywood enough of a face lift so it can once again attract residents, businesses and tourists.

“Development deals have fallen through because people have lost faith in Hollywood, because of crime. Cutting down on crime is redevelopment,” said Richard Rudman, a leader of the Greater Hollywood Civic Assn. “Good people are moving out and so are many businesses. Something has to be done to put the plug back in the bathtub before all the water runs out.”

Rudman’s group, in an Oct. 28 letter to city officials, said the CRA can legally amend the redevelopment plan to pay for officers. Police are all for it, says Deputy Police Chief Glenn Levant, and the Hollywood Boulevard Community Council calls the idea a “win-win situation.”

The issue has been the subject of local newspaper columns and community meetings. William Fleet, publisher of the Hollywood Independent newspaper, has been saying in his column in the paper that if the city-approved Hollywood Plan cannot be changed to allow funds to be used for police, community leaders should look to lawmakers in Sacramento for help.

“If the last resort is to change the state law, I say change the state law,” said Fleet, who also is a board member of the Hollywood Chamber of Commerce. “The crime in Hollywood is much too rampant to not do something.”

Councilman Michael Woo said that, although he supports the idea of paying for police with redevelopment funds, it can’t be done without a change in the state law. Woo said he has asked for help in amending the state law from his former boss, state Senate President Pro Tem David Roberti (D-Los Angeles). Roberti’s staff had no comment.

Woo, who represents Hollywood, said he hopes Roberti will resurrect a bill that died in the Legislature last year. It would have allowed cities to use redevelopment money for police and some other services. He said he was optimistic such a bill could be passed.

“The money is there, the need is there, and all we need is permission from Sacramento to get this money,” Woo said. “There is no opposition in the City Council and the CRA to this.”

But some community activists question whether the councilman and CRA officials have political motives for not pressing the issue too hard.

They say that to amend the Hollywood redevelopment plan would probably require the establishment of a publicly elected PAC, or Project Area Committee.

There had been a PAC for the Hollywood project, but in a controversial move Woo disbanded it two years ago in favor of his own handpicked group of advisers. Woo called the elected PAC, which continues to meet and criticize him, “a forum for wacky behavior.”

One PAC leader, Robert Nudelman, said of Woo and CRA officials: “They’d rather have criminals wandering the streets rather than elected PAC members wandering the hallways.”

Christopher Sutton, a redevelopment attorney who has represented critics of the CRA in lawsuits, accused Woo and the CRA “of hiding behind this notion of ambiguity and legal opinion. They’re just not taking the steps they need to find out” whether the redevelopment money can be used to pay for police.

Still others in the community say that all they want is for city officials to determine once and for all what is the best way to free up redevelopment money for police. “If our local government is resisting this grand solution to the biggest problem facing our community,” said Don Lippman, of the Hollywood Boulevard Community Council, “we are entitled to know why.”