Gadfly, Long a Thorn in Burbank City Council’s Side, Jabs a New Target : Government: He contends Redevelopment Agency owes him relocation fees. His rental home was purchased after he was evicted.

If this city had a dictionary, Jules Kimmett’s picture would be plastered right next to the word gadfly .

For more years than some probably care to remember, Kimmett has been a thorn in the side of the City Council, appearing at nearly every meeting to needle officials on everything from the slow pace of developing a mall to the legality of closed council sessions.

Kimmett--who calls himself “His Majesty’s royal opposition and the devil’s advocate”--has set his sights this time on the city’s Redevelopment Agency in a battle that literally hits home.

Three years ago, the agency purchased property that housed an apartment where Kimmett had lived for 24 years.

Kimmett alleges that the city failed to provide him with the relocation assistance he was entitled to, and now owes him and his companion $25,000.

“It all boils down to a simple question of justice and equity,” Kimmett said this week at a Redevelopment Agency hearing held to discuss his claim.

But as is often the case, Kimmett and city officials do not see eye-to-eye on the issue.

City officials argue that Kimmett is not eligible for relocation assistance for a simple reason: He did not actually live in the building when the Redevelopment Agency began negotiations to purchase it.

As part of an appeals process, redevelopment officials last week convened to hear Kimmett’s version of the events that left him and his companion, Cecilia Kelly, with no place to live.

And Kimmett is not alone. About seven other families were also evicted and, in interviews, some of them have also said they were treated unfairly by the city.

“Everybody feels the relocation fees due to us should be paid,” former resident Clint Wise said. “. . . It was highly unjust.”

At the heart of the controversy is the question of what constitutes negotiations--and what obligation city officials have to residents of the property the city obtains.

Back in 1990, Kimmett and Kelly lived at 1106-D W. Olive Ave., where he had lived for more than two decades. The building was dilapidated, but the rent was only $65 a month.

Many of the tenants were friends of the property owner, Dr. William Eschrich, a friendly, well-loved doctor who, by many accounts, was concerned about the welfare of his patients and tenants.

“Bill really was a country doctor,” said Dr. William Marshall, who worked with Eschrich. “He’d been (practicing) in Burbank since 1941.”

In exchange for rent or reduced rent, Wise and others would do maintenance at the building, Wise said. Those who lived in the courtyard of cottages and apartments were like a family, he said.

But after Eschrich died, things began to change, former tenants said. Shortly after his death, they began receiving eviction notices.

From newspaper articles and conversations with Eschrich, many of the former tenants said they knew that the city had been interested in the property for years. In 1987, there was talk of possibly building a fire station there.

Kimmett suspected that Eschrich’s son, Tyler, was evicting the tenants because the city was finally purchasing the building, so Kimmett began trying to find out about relocation fees.

“First of all, I brought it into the City Council chamber,” Kimmett recalled. “I spoke to the city manager. I spoke to the redevelopment people.”

But city officials did not provide him with information about the city’s interest in the building, he alleges, nor explain his rights as a tenant in a building being acquired by the Redevelopment Agency.

“One of the problems we’re finding is that Mr. Kimmett has spoken with several people in a casual conversation but never said, ‘I wanted to file a claim,’ ” said John Ornelas, a redevelopment administrator.

Unable to afford an attorney, Kimmett represented himself at an eviction hearing. He was being evicted not because he was a bad tenant, he said, but because the city wanted to purchase the building.

At one point in the hearing, the commissioner also expressed concern that the landlord was “getting these people out with the anticipation that this property is going to be acquired one way or the other and (he) is going to avoid paying the redevelopment relocation-required costs and complying with relocation laws and rules. . . .”

According to transcripts, Tyler Eschrich defended the evictions, saying some tenants had not paid their rent and kept numerous pets and cars, making it difficult to maintain the property. He testified that the tenants were being evicted so that the property could be renovated, not because the city wanted the land.

Kimmett was evicted and moved to an apartment nearby. Wise was also evicted after a hearing.

If Kimmett had been able to demonstrate the city’s interest in the property, he might have successfully fought his eviction, said Ted McConkey, a family friend who helped Kimmett at the redevelopment hearing recently.

In September, 1990, the city notified the owner in writing of its intent to purchase the property and eventually did buy it. The city is now constructing a senior housing complex.

But Kimmett and McConkey later learned that the city previously sent Tyler Eschrich a notice of its intent to appraise the building--on April 13--when Kimmett was still legally residing there. A few days later, city officials spoke by phone with the owner about the city’s interest in the building, according to city records.

The question of dates is an important one.

Redevelopment law requires municipalities to provide relocation assistance to tenants who live in a building when negotiations are initiated, Ornelas said.

In the view of Kimmett and his supporters, negotiations began when the city sent the notice of appraisal in April.

The city has argued that negotiations started Sept. 24 of that year, when the city sent a written notice of its intent to purchase the property.

“Our position is we send letters of intent to appraise to property owners all the time,” Ornelas said. “That doesn’t mean we’re going to acquire the property.”

Using either side’s interpretation of when negotiations started, some residents, such as Ron Leonard Twoeagle, apparently would be eligible for assistance.

Twoeagle, his wife and their two teen-age children lived in a cottage on the property until November, 1990, when he lost his legal fight against the eviction--and after the city sent a notice of its intent to purchase the property. Twoeagle said city officials never informed him of any assistance available to his family.

“I had no place to go with my kids,” Twoeagle said. “The kids had to go stay with someone in Sunland. I had a little motor home and I just slept in that.”

Twoeagle said he is considering filing a claim.

Redevelopment officials expect to make a decision on Kimmett’s case sometime next week.