Neighbors Wary of Plan to Build Low-Cost Homes : Pacoima: Almost 200 residents oppose a 50-unit townhouse project, saying it would increase congestion and crime in an already burdened community.

Sandra Jones says she has nothing against poor people. As a social-worker supervisor, she comes into contact with the poor every day as she helps them find jobs and achieve stability.

Even so, Jones said, she has nothing but reservations about a planned low-income housing complex that would bring dozens of such families to her Pacoima community.

Jones is just one of almost 200 Pacoima residents who are vehemently opposed to a 50-unit townhouse project designed and sponsored by the Los Angeles City Housing Authority for families wanting to get their foot in the door of the high-priced housing market. Some have even threatened to move if the development goes forward.

The opposition to the project illustrates the growing citywide conflict between housing officials trying to assist low-income families on the one hand, and middle-class residents in surrounding neighborhoods who say such projects lower property values and bring an undesirable element to their areas.

“I know it’s rather ironic that I would be against something like this,” Jones said as she stood in the doorway of her home in the Hansen Hills tract. Her house overlooks the proposed site, near the corner of Osborne Place and Osborne Street. “I work with it every day, so I know what it’s all about. And I want to be caring.”

However, Jones, who is black, echoed the fears of others in the predominantly African-American, middle-class neighborhood that the project will bring crime, noise and congestion to their area. They said gang members and criminals who rent subsidized apartments near the site have harmed the community with graffiti, vandalism and violence.

Several residents said the community already has too many other low-income complexes. They complain of hearing gunfire and of trash being strewn in vacant lots, of youths harassing and even terrorizing older residents.

“These type of projects help people out, but they also bring in an element that puts people in danger,” Jones said. “I want to see us as a people get ahead. I know what it’s like not to have anything. But some of us feel that society owes us something, and we’d rather destroy what others have accomplished.”

Although they understand such concerns, city officials stress that the new housing is desperately needed. City housing authority executives said Los Angeles has a shortage of 1 million units for low-income families.

“I sympathize and understand the concerns of the residents,” said Charles Cofield, the agency’s development director. “I am as concerned as the community when I hear about crime and social problems. It’s disheartening to us to know that we may be exposing them to this.”

But there is no easy answer, he added. “Unfortunately, there’s only so much land in the city, and we have to take advantage of what land we can build on when the money becomes available,” he said.

Other officials said larger social ills are to blame for the stigma surrounding such projects, not necessarily the residents themselves.

“There are many good people in public housing who are trying very hard to make life better for themselves,” said city Planning Commissioner Fernando Torres-Gil after listening to the complaints of residents during a hearing last week on the project.

“The problems everyone is talking about is not because of housing, but because of the lack of housing, education and the need for stringent gun control,” he said.

Over the objections of residents, the commission on Thursday approved a zoning change needed for the project to go forward.

Neelura Bell, assistant housing director for Mayor Tom Bradley, said the townhouse project and others that are similar offer opportunities for lower-income people to own their homes and improve their economic standing. “We want to create economic self-sufficiency among housing authority residents so that they won’t be so dependent on the government for assistance,” she said.

Officials said the site is perfect for families because it is close to schools, parks, stores and bus lines. Nearby are single-family homes, a condominium development and several gray stucco apartment complexes with banners that read: “Free rent available.”

Cofield said he is seeking funding from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development to build the $4.2-million project, which will offer three- and four-bedroom units.

No price has been set for the units, but they would be “well under” $100,000, Cofield said, and the final price would be tied to the purchaser’s income. He said the project is targeted at families who earn between 20% and 30% of the Los Angeles median income of $42,000.

“We’re not talking about the homeless or the unemployed,” Cofield said. “These would be the working poor.”

Among other amenities, the units will have 1 1/2 bathrooms, individual back yards, sliding glass doors leading outside from the kitchen and hookups for dishwashers and dryers.

Cofield said he is taking measures to allay neighbors’ fears. He said the buildings will have an on-site manager and security guards will patrol the complexes periodically.

However, several residents in the area remain convinced that the new project will bring nothing but blight to their community.

“They just keep packing and packing stuff in here,” said Norman Corbett, another Hansen Hills resident who has lived in the area since 1976.

Corbett stood on his back deck and pointed to a concentration of industrial buildings and condominiums near his home. “When I first moved here, there were horse farms, open tennis courts just outside my house,” he said. “I could see the golf course. It was like being out in the country. It was wonderful.

“Now I can’t see anything. I’m not against low-income housing, but why don’t they spread it out, put it in Encino or Studio City? Why does it all have to go to Pacoima? Enough is enough.”

Vertis Love, who has lived in Hansen Hills for 17 years, echoed Corbett’s sentiment. “I feel that this particular neighborhood has suffered enough. The projects we have right now certainly haven’t improved the area.”

Following the Planning Commission approval, Beverly Bess, who resides in the Glenoaks Mobile Manor mobile-home park, said the city was trying to paint the opponents of the project as unsympathetic.

“They’re trying to make us the bad guys,” she said angrily. “But let them get . . . out here and live in the middle of it for a year. Let’s see what they’d say then!”