A ‘Hollow Victory’ in the Battle of Hawthorne : Redevelopment: Some residents claim the city is ignoring the north end as a way to force changes. They oppose a major project but fear that doing nothing will make it harder to sell their homes.

When a Superior Court judge recently invalidated one of Hawthorne’s redevelopment plans, it appeared as if residents of the city’s north end had won a major victory.

But the same day the ruling came down, some of the homeowners near the Imperial Highway Corridor were already questioning whether it might not be in their best interest to let the city project go forward. If Hawthorne doesn’t take an interest in their neighborhood, they believe it could make it that much more difficult to sell their properties in the future.

“I don’t mind moving if they give us a fair price,” said Alejandro Mercado, owner of a stucco house on Firmona Avenue for 16 years. “Maybe we can move somewhere just as good or better. This area is being neglected.”

City officials deny that they have neglected the area, where they hope eventually to attract the development of a mixed-use project that would incorporate housing, office space and retail shops. They also describe the judge’s decision as “a hollow victory” for the residents because they believe it will only postpone, not prevent, redevelopment in the area.

“They haven’t won anything except the right to block our redevelopment plan,” City Atty. Michael Adamson said. “It’s somewhat of a hollow victory at this point . . . (because) the area is one we think will be developed eventually.”

Residents, however, believe that the city has long overlooked their neighborhood so that it could be declared a blighted area, which would allow the city to move forward with redevelopment. According to the residents’ attorneys, more than 4,500 people live in the areas targeted for redevelopment.

They contend that with neglect comes plummeting property values, and if they can’t sell now, some believe they will ultimately be forced to unload their homes for a lower price.

Although attorneys for the residents and the city are negotiating a possible settlement, it appears unlikely that the two sides will achieve a compromise.

The residents say they would drop the suit if they could be assured that the city’s redevelopment plans would not reach into residential areas. But city officials say they are unwilling to abide by those terms.

“We’re not convinced that they (the residents) are the best experts as to how Hawthorne should be redeveloped,” Adamson said.

“If they feel that monetary damages will solve their problems, then I’m willing to talk. But if what they want is some sort of ban on redevelopment, then I’ve got nothing to say to them.”

Kendall Layns, a nine-year resident of Hawthorne, is skeptical of the intentions of city officials. “I think (the city) has already neglected the neighborhood to help them call it blighted,” she said. “They’ve let it go because that runs an area down.”

Early this month, a judge ruled that the city failed to prove that the 254-acre parcel scattered primarily through the city’s north end along Hawthorne Boulevard is unsafe and unfit under state health and safety codes.

Only buildings that are prone to “ill health, transmission of disease, infant mortality, juvenile delinquency and crime” can be considered blighted enough to warrant redevelopment, said San Bernardino Superior Court Judge Carl E. Davis. Davis said he based his ruling in part on the city’s failure to prove that the area had a higher crime rate and lower property values than other parts of the city.

Bud Cormier, assistant director of Hawthorne’s Redevelopment Agency, said that nearly 20% of the 775 buildings in the area are in major disrepair.

“I think the area is blighted,” he said. “The only way it will turn around is through redevelopment. It just hasn’t done it on its own.”

By labeling the area blighted, the city could exercise its power of eminent domain--the ability to force residents to sell their property to the city to make room for private development.

Martin Trouillon, one of three residents who filed the lawsuit to block Hawthorne’s plan, said the judge’s decision proved that the area is not as run-down as officials had portrayed. Even if the plan went forward, he said, many of the residents in the area pay low mortgages or rents and there is no guarantee that the city would relocate them to comparable housing.

City officials, however, insist they would pay fair market value for the property.

Joseph Panone, an attorney representing the city, said his clients have not decided whether they will appeal the judge’s decision.

Although redevelopment is at a standstill, some residents fear that the value of their homes will decline if the battle drags on.

“I don’t mind them (redeveloping),” Layns said, “but I don’t like being put on hold. I can’t sell because I would have to disclose to the buyers that they might not have a house.”

She said she would like to add another bathroom to her three-bedroom Firmona Avenue house but she is waiting to find out if she and her family will still be living there in the next few years.

“I don’t have the money to expand and be told I have to lose (the house),” Layns said.

Other residents said the city’s obligation to relocate residents appeals to them.

More than 80 residents on Firmona, Mansel and Grevillea avenues signed petitions against inclusion in the redevelopment zone when the issue came before the City Council in 1990.

Some residents said they feared they would not be able to find affordable housing elsewhere. However, they would be relieved to move to a nicer neighborhood.

Seventeen-year resident Margaret Hill said she’d be more than happy to leave.

“I think they should go ahead and clean this mess up,” Hill said. “There are just a few of us who own homes in this area and we’re sitting here like a bunch of birds waiting for something to happen.”

Times Staff Writer Kim Kowsky also contributed to this story.