LOS ANGELES TIMES INTERVIEW : Peter Ueberroth : A Man of Privilege Aims to Get Down and Dirty to Rebuild L.A.

Mr. Goodwrench is back on the scene. Peter V. Ueberroth, the can-do maven of the 1984 Olympics and former commissioner of baseball, will now turn his hand to jump-starting the dead zones of a faltering city. Sounds good, but not everyone is thrilled with his selection by Mayor Tom Bradley to head up the Rebuild L.A committee.

One problem he has is that he is white and privileged when much of the city no longer is. Worse yet, he is a Republican who lives in white-flight Orange County, whose congressional delegation voted to deny federal funds to aid riot-torn Los Angeles. Critics point out that he has not previously evidenced interest or competency in dealing with the modern urban dilemma. It does seem a bit condescending that one who has lived outside of the concerns of urban America is now perceived as uniquely suited to engineer its salvation.

But many are betting he can pull it off.

Among other things, Ueberroth is a winner, and the cause of the inner city is not. His confidence and ambition are infectious, and there may be no finer salesman of whatever it is he is selling at the moment. Who is better positioned to both hustle and intimidate corporate America to do what is right by the cities that for so long nurtured them and their profits? “I will hold their feet to the fire,” Ueberroth promises, and as the money surplus piled up by the Olympics indicates, that’s good news for local taxpayers. It is also true that the sports world, which he helped lead, is the most integrated area of our society in which black males are celebrated rather than denigrated.

Operating out of a one-story suite of hastily converted offices off a back alley near 9th and Figueroa, Ueberroth receives a steady stream of volunteers. They walk in off the street saying they have been moved to give the city they love--often despite itself--one more chance. He intends to meld them, as he did Olympics volunteers, into a vast grass-roots work force--interracial, productive and cheerful--hopefully suggesting a model of a community life that might come to pass. Hey, at least he stepped up to the plate.

Question: What are the dimensions of the Rebuild LA plan?

Answer: It’s primarily to harness the energy and efforts of the private sector for jobs and economic growth. It pretty much focuses on long-term solutions.

Q: Presumably, there also will be a major governmental effort.

A: Government we have no power over. All we can do is maybe leverage some government efforts. In our program, there will not be any serious funding from government. But we will work with governments to eliminate the obstacles to investment and to provide incentives--it’s really key.

Q: Right. The reason that I’m asking is it seems some of the criticism of your effort so early on--

A: How the hell can there be criticism when we are 6 days old and we haven’t started? Other than you guys running around provoking it, or somebody who just likes to stand and criticize. We haven’t done anything.

Q: Don’t shoot the messenger. People like Jesse Jackson and Rep. Maxine Waters are calling for a Marshall Plan--a massive government rebuilding of the infrastructure of the cities. The leading urban mayors have called for $35 billion to go into the cities. Now, there is nothing intrinsically competitive between what you’re doing and that kind of a call.

A: Exactly. You’re exactly right. Government programs will all help. That’s not our job, but we would be supportive of whatever they want to do. They can call for it, but government at all levels in America is out of money.

Q: What Waters and Jackson would argue is that private enterprise cannot be counted on to rebuild the schools and care for other infrastructure needs of the inner city. That’s what government has to do.

A: I don’t disagree. California will be educating one of eight students in America by the end of this decade--eight years away. So what they are addressing is serious.

Q: It’s easy to criticize government, but fighting poverty requires long-term and costly commitment--which the private sector has avoided. Has that changed?

A: They know now, clearly, that if they don’t do something about it, it’s bad for their business; so that’s what this little group is about--Rebuild LA. It’s about funneling that energy and making it work. It’s a three-legged stool--community, government and private business--and all have to work.

Q: And the private sector, which you are dealing with, has a record of redlining the poorer areas and denying them funds and other support.

A: Your statement is correct. The private sector has, along with government, been part of the problem. They now have to be part of the solution. I mean, they have been clearly part of the problem.

Q: But what is the incentive? Why should they even want to stay in Los Angeles with all of its problems? What’s the motivation to not continue to be part of the problem?

A: There is good and bad in all levels of society--there is good and bad that lives in the streets with the looting and rioting. There is good and bad at the highest corporate level. But most thinking people understand that something important, new, innovative is going to have to be done to allow the inner cities to rebuild. To allow the inner cities to be very special again. We must do that. I believe it is good business. And most corporations, globally, think that the rotting and the decay of inner cities in America is a very bad thing for everybody. So you got to be part of the solution.

Q: That’s what they said in Detroit.

A: And it didn’t happen. And that’s what they said in New Jersey, and it didn’t happen. And that’s what they said in Miami, and it didn’t happen. They said that even here in Watts. I know, I was here, and I was in business the whole time. And I didn’t do anything after the 1965 events here. I had branches all over town, and I didn’t open up any in that area. So, I’m as guilty as the next person. But an unusual, extraordinary effort needs to be made. It won’t be easy.

Q: That’s for sure. Why shouldn’t a multinational corporation coming to Southern California move to Costa Mesa or North San Diego instead of Watts with lots of parking and far fewer social problems?

A: Not knowing any facts about the decay of cities, arriving here out of the blue, any company would say this San Diego corridor looks awfully good to me. Many will do that. But most smart thinking now is going to recognize that it’s a good time to make a long-term, sustainable commitment to jobs in the inner city. Then the next question is how do you get local ownership back in the inner city?

Q: What about local control over the future of their community?

A: Nobody can bring anything in that the community doesn’t want. So we’ve got to get people to come together and talk about it in the tiniest little neighborhoods, in the tiniest little pieces. They have to say what works for them--what they want. Then we have to talk with the private sector and find out what they need. And some of that may be tax incentives.

Q: The government leg.

A: Yes, and it needs to be a partnership. That’s the only thing that ever works in America historically. We did build ships in five days in this state--in my lifetime.

Q: For the disbelieving reader, I just wonder what is the self-interest of the private sector? What is it about a city increasingly made up of minorities that would attract new business?

A: You just answered the question. The private-sector community is smart, and demographic studies are not hidden away in vaults. Their customer base is going to be a customer base of color in the state of California. If they’re not part of an involved employee base that matches as close as they can to their customer base--they’re pretty much out of business. They might as well move to Japan or move to some other country and send some product in.

Global companies, whether they be in Japan or Germany, they’re going to access this marketplace which is the 6th or 7th largest marketplace in the world. They’d better be part of the solution. They’d better understand how to make and how to offer opportunities to all kinds of people, or it will hurt their business. There are sheep in every part of society, and you need good leadership. And good leadership will follow good leadership in a company system.

Q: Everyone watches the same television ads--so you can reach the inner city market without locating your plant there. Why should businesses to locate there?

A: You have to have people to buy your product. You’re going to sell them in the major markets. If they continue to decay, there is a very bad future for this country. If there is a bad future economically for this country, if we can’t compete, your business is really in deep trouble.

I would tell the private sector it is in their self-interest. That here, they are right in the center of communications, right in the center of people. If you want to be a leader, an innovator, you want your product to be at the leading edge and there’s a wonderful confluence of people that are coming together in Southern California.

Q: What’s your specific pitch?

A: Here is a neighborhood. They would like to have a distribution center. What we’d like you to do is as follows: When you have the permits to build the distribution center, the day you have the permit, hire the 60 people. Hire them. You may have to go through 200, but be sure of this--that they represent the community, that they represent the population base of the inner city. Attach your training people to them. And move them out into your culture. Move them out into other distribution centers.

And so, as the lumber is going up and the building is built, the day you are ready to open, you’ve got your team trained and you put them right back in there. And make that distribution center work. You have a deal. You have a commitment. I can shake your hand and I’m going to walk out of your office. That will happen, times a large number.

Q: No one in their right mind would want to discourage you from trying to do this. But is this a realistic model? Right now, you’re hot. The issue is hot because of the riots. Some months down the road it will be cold.

A: I know that very well.

Q: What’s your plan?

A: If I could program it, I’d make you disappear and make it get very quiet. Until we have our success stories--success follows success. And then there is not a corporation that will not want to be part of it. That will create its own energy.

Q: OK, but if I were a congressperson in this community, I’d say, “Go Peter, I’m with you. Anything I can do, here’s my phone number. However, I also want big federal dollars for my district and I resent the decades of neglect.” I would be pretty angry if I represented South Los Angeles.

A: You’d have every right to be. Because you’ve been saying something loud and clear, and no one’s been listening, right?

Q: Then I’d say, wait a minute, not to take anything away from the needs of those people of former Soviet republics, but I hear about billions of dollars in loan guarantees and so forth, and again, I don’t want to be competitive with what Peter’s doing, but I want some kind of mini Marshall Plan or something--

A: Great.

Q: You don’t see these as competitive models?

A: Absolutely not. We’re a piece of the pie. What we hope to do is deliver the piece that has never been there. And I believe it has never been there.

Q: So, you don’t want people to say, “Oh well, Ueberroth’s taking care of it, we don’t need government to do these other things.”

A: No, in fact, I’d rather people not say that. If I was a congressperson, I would vote in favor of massive government expenditures in the inner cities.

Q: But, actually, we are now talking about cutting significant government expenditures to South Los Angeles. Sixty percent of the people there are on welfare--half of which represents federal dollars--and your friend, Gov. Pete Wilson, is pushing a 25% cut in welfare payments. That’s money that would be spent, with a high multiplier effect, at the stores you’re trying to get started. Isn’t that a serious problem?

A: That is a major, negative blow to our efforts. Our goal is to get people off welfare by employing them. But there has to be time to do it right and long term. And that is a major, negative blow and if government has the resources that they are putting elsewhere, (welfare) would be a much wiser, smart investment. It is a cost-effective investment. It is good business to make that community thrive.