North-South Spat Imperils Museum Plan : Legislature: Panel blocks funds to build a new science showcase in L.A. Some say the money is meant for Loma Prieta quake victims.

Until two weeks ago, the construction of a new $45-million Museum of Science and Industry in Los Angeles seemed an absolute certainty.

But that was before the war between North and South broke out in the state Legislature.

That was before questions were raised about why money earmarked for earthquake repairs after Northern California’s Loma Prieta quake was being used to build a new structure. (And in Los Angeles, no less, the place known to much of Northern California as the predatory metropolis to the south that steals football teams and other valuable assets.)

That was before legislators who had voted for the museum in 1992 suddenly balked last month at appropriating the money to build it.

And the drama is still unfolding, as state legislators in Sacramento wrestle with the subject in budget hearings. A decision is expected as early as next week.

The stakes in this fight are high. The museum is seen as an important cog in the redevelopment of the Exposition Park area, home of the Coliseum. Local legislators talk of the jobs the project will create and then about how stalling on the money question seems vindictive on the part of Northern California politicians.

“It’s definitely a North-South question,” said Assemblywoman Marguerite Archie-Hudson (D-Los Angeles), one of the key backers of the project. “We’ve answered everything over and over and over again. I don’t understand why the questions keep cropping up, and it’s getting to be very frustrating.”

The legislators from the North counter by suggesting there is a bit of chicanery in the wind here, that money designated for one use is being spent on another.

“What California citizens voted for was to protect themselves from entering buildings which would be unsafe during earthquakes; they voted against being in deathtraps. But most emphatically, they did not vote to misuse money to raze a historic museum simply so that a new and larger one could be constructed in its place,” said Sen. Nicholas Petris (D-Oakland).

The controversy over the construction of the museum--plans for which have been in the works for four years--began May 25, when state Sen. Quentin Kopp (I-San Francisco) persuaded a Senate budget committee to rescind all $45 million earmarked for the project.

*

In doing so, he pointed out that the money for the museum was coming from a $300-million pot approved by voters in the wake of the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake. He contended that money obviously intended for earthquake repair in Northern California should not be used to build a new museum in Southern California.

A particular sore point: The $45 million was the largest single appropriation from the fund.

Museum Director Jeffrey Rudolph defends using the money for a new museum. It may be in Southern California, but he said the project meets all the requirements of the law. Rudolph said he had been so confident of the budget committee’s approval that no one from his staff had even attended the budget session that day. He learned what had happened when a supporter in Sacramento called later in the day and said, “Guess what?”

“We really weren’t prepared for it,” he said. “While some concerns had been expressed in other hearings, we thought we had answered the concerns of the senators.”

The controversy surrounding the museum centers on two buildings that have been closed to the public since 1990--the Ahmanson Building and the Armory, both more than 80 years old.

In 1987, the Legislature authorized the preparation of a master plan for Exposition Park, where the Museum of Science and Industry is.

In 1990, as part of the plan’s preparation, architects examined both buildings and concluded that they would be unsafe in an earthquake. Further, they said that because more than 1,000 children visited the museum each day, the risk of keeping the buildings open was heightened. So, in June, 1990, both buildings were closed to the public, though the staff still has its offices in the armory.

Four months after the closure, voters passed the 1990 Earthquake Safety and Public Building Rehabilitation Bond Act. The act was in response to the Loma Prieta earthquake. It was designed, in part, to repair several severely damaged state buildings in Oakland and San Francisco.

But the act did not specify a designated geographical area. And it also said the money could be used to either repair or replace buildings that were unsafe in an earthquake.

*

In their quest for funds to replace the closed buildings, museum officials began looking for what sources might be available. They hit upon funds from the bond issue. Even if such use was unintended, the view from Los Angeles was that the wording of the law perfectly described the museum’s status.

In 1992, state Sen. Teresa Hughes (D-Inglewood) introduced legislation calling for the replacement of the museum and asked that the funding source be the building rehabilitation bond act. The bill sailed through both the House and Senate. Among those voting for it were Kopp and Petris.

Petris said he did not believe at the time that the plan was to raze the two buildings. He said he thought the idea was to restore them.

“I wasn’t thinking about having two historical buildings torn down,” he said. “The proponents are interpreting it as knocking down buildings and building new ones. I personally think it’s a bad idea to destroy those two buildings.”

Rudolph, the museum’s executive director, said bids for the demolition of the two buildings were to be opened later this month. He said the plans, which were approved by such groups as the Los Angeles Conservancy, had been a matter of public scrutiny for years. “It wasn’t snuck through,” he said of the bill authorizing the new museum. “It was not a last-minute amendment to get the money.”

State Sen. Diane Watson (D-Los Angeles), another proponent of the museum, said she understood much was now being made of tearing down two historic buildings. But she called it a specious argument because of conservation organizations having signed off on the project.

“I hear there is some concern that Los Angeles is taking the lion’s share of money that we don’t deserve,” she said. “I think it’s retaliation for the Raiders and other personal gripes.”