Dana Point Axes Redevelopment Agency

Dana Point’s Community Redevelopment Agency, the target of heated debate since its inception, was finally disbanded Tuesday night.

The City Council voted unanimously to discontinue the long-dormant agency in the hopes of healing the divisiveness that has beset the city for nearly two years. The five-member council acts in a dual capacity as the Redevelopment Agency.

“The threat of redevelopment has stifled our city’s natural growth,” said City Councilman William L. Ossenmacher. “As long as the agency exists, there will continue to be a deep division in our community. We don’t need this.”

The council vote will cost the city $506,453, the amount which the agency spent on such things as an environmental impact report, legal fees and consultants’ reports. Those fees were loaned to the agency by the council and paid out of the city’s general fund.

The council vote to disband the agency effectively writes off that debt.

City Councilman Mike Eggers, however, suggested that the money was not wasted. The work done by the agency remains valuable for the city, he said.

“We can use the information for our capital improvement project and in other areas,” Eggers said. “We would have paid for it out of our general fund anyway.”

The Community Redevelopment Agency has sparked heated public outcry since it was organized in December, 1989, as a plan to finance public improvements throughout the city. However, many residents were suspicious of the agency’s intentions and immediately demanded that it be disbanded.

After hours of public debate over the course of months, the council effectively stripped the agency of all of its power by voting 3-2 in February, 1991, to kill the citywide redevelopment plan. Council members Judy Curreri and Eileen Krause were the lone holdouts.

Although the agency has been inactive since, political pressure to close it down for good has continued. Krause, once an outspoken supporter of a citywide redevelopment plan, earlier this month asked for a staff analysis of its pros and cons, and wound up suggesting that the agency be put to rest.

Since the agency exists only on paper anyway, why shouldn’t the council move to eliminate it entirely to satisfy the public concerns? Krause said.

“It isn’t doing us any good to leave the agency dormant, and it might do us some good to disband it,” Krause said. “Right now, it makes no sense to retain it.”

Newly elected Ossenmacher, a longtime redevelopment opponent, said his election in June showed the community wanted the agency disbanded.

“I think the election showed the sentiments of the citizens,” Ossenmacher said. “I think people are looking for some changes.”

Some council critics have suggested that the vote reflects the pressure brought on the council by a recall effort targeted at Krause and Eggers. The recall backers are vocal redevelopment agency critics.