2nd Suit Filed Over Planned Roadway Use of Housing Funds

A San Fernando Valley legal aid firm Friday filed suit against Lancaster’s plan to build $24 million in roadway overpasses with money that state law mandates be reserved for low- to moderate-income housing, the second challenge in the past month.

Meanwhile, the city disclosed it has paid its law firm more than $755,000 in the past five years--in addition to the city attorney’s pay the firm collects--to advise it on 30 bond issues similar to those proposed for the overpasses. Critics have called the firm’s dual role a conflict of interest.

The latest challenge to the complicated overpass financing plan was filed in Lancaster Superior Court by San Fernando Valley Neighborhood Legal Services, a federally funded, nonprofit law firm in Pacoima.

“We decided to get involved because there’s a number of people in Lancaster who desperately need affordable housing. The response compared to the need is really disproportionate,” attorney Mona Tawatao said. She filed the suit on behalf of Lancaster resident Faith Marie Craft, a low-income renter.

A similar challenge was filed Dec. 31 by the Los Angeles law firm of Kane, Ballmer & Berkman, which specializes in redevelopment law and sometimes pursues public interest cases. That challenge accused Lancaster’s city attorney of a conflict of interest because the firm advises the city on financings and then is paid to do the resulting bond counsel work.

City officials could not be reached Friday for comment on the lawsuit. But in the past, they have defended the overpasses plan, saying it includes provisions to promote the development of low-cost housing. And City Atty. David McEwen has denied that his dual role as city attorney and bond counsel poses a conflict of interest.

State law requires the city to set aside a portion of its redevelopment proceeds for low-income housing. Lancaster wants to use that money to back bonds that would be used to raise money to build the overpasses, which would carry traffic over a Southern Pacific railroad line on avenues H and L near Sierra Highway.

City officials argue that other incentives in the program, offering lower city building fees, will encourage developers in nearby areas to build low-income housing or help repay the housing funds the city hopes to spend. However, both of the law firms that challenged the plan maintain the city is illegally trying to evade state law and offers no guarantees that low-income housing will be built.