CRA Chief to Seek Backing of Public : City Hall: His proposals for ’93 are aimed at putting the agency’s controversies in the past. But critics express skepticism.

Dogged by criticism during 1992, the Los Angeles Community Redevelopment Agency on Tuesday unveiled a strategy for the new year aimed at establishing better ties with homeowners, revitalizing riot-torn areas and increasing its revenues by lifting the limit on tax money it receives from downtown.

The proposals by CRA Administrator Ed Avila, outlined in a memo distributed to city officials, are aimed at putting the agency’s controversies in the past and garnering public support for future redevelopment efforts.

Avila’s push comes four months after the agency suffered a stinging defeat in Sacramento, where CRA-sponsored legislation that would have speeded redevelopment projects in riot-damaged areas was rejected before ever coming to a vote. A combination of partisan politics and fearful homeowners led to the bill being withdrawn.

The agency also saw its funding slashed by the City Council during budget-balancing talks in May, although the money was reinstated by Mayor Tom Bradley’s veto.

During the coming months, Avila said, the agency is going to make a greater effort to get communities involved in redevelopment decisions by such means as holding more public meetings and publishing fact sheets on development issues. Acknowledging that fear of eminent domain runs deep, Avila said the agency has to be sensitive and use that tool only when it has broad support from residents.

Avila said his staff is also working on its version of a citywide redevelopment strategy to add cohesion to the operation of projects scattered throughout the city. One major focus, he said, will be the areas destroyed during the civil disturbances last year.

Criticism of the agency is so intense that some immediately dismissed Avila’s proposals Tuesday, saying the powerful public agency has failed repeatedly to prove itself.

“All that sounds great but this is an agency that has no track record doing the things they are proposing,” said Mary Lee, a lawyer and community activist based in South-Central Los Angeles. “I’m always suspicious when public agencies suddenly discover that they ought to include the public.”

Assemblyman Curtis Tucker Jr. (D-Inglewood) says he wants the agency disbanded. “The CRA can come up with any plan they want but the community isn’t going to buy it because they don’t trust them. I want to create an alternative to the CRA.”

Avila, who took over as head of the agency in March, 1991, said he is anxious to use redevelopment to address community concerns in areas damaged by the riots. He hopes to announce a recovery project this year, Avila said. But to do so, he said, the community must give the CRA a chance by ignoring the anti-redevelopment activists who will never support the agency’s efforts.

Lifting the $750-million limit on tax revenues that the CRA can receive from downtown redevelopment projects is essential, Avila said, because the tax base in South-Central is not sufficient to support redevelopment projects there. The agency, he said, will probably use up the existing money by the end of next year and needs the cap lifted to continue receiving funds.

The agency’s projects are funded by tapping into county property tax revenues. When projects are started, the tax money the county receives is frozen, freeing any increases in property tax revenue for the CRA.

The CRA has sought to increase the cap for years, a complicated process that will require the approval of the City Council, the County Board of Supervisors, the Los Angeles Unified School District and other agencies. Avila’s latest push is likely to raise the ire of CRA critics, who depict the agency as a cash cow for wealthy developers that has devoted more attention to the skyscrapers downtown than to outlying impoverished neighborhoods.

Councilman Mark Ridley-Thomas said he would favor lifting the spending cap only if the agency can first win back the community’s confidence.

“The question is whether the CRA has established enough credibility yet,” Ridley-Thomas said. “I don’t think the cap ought to be lifted in a way that further fuels the distrust.”