Mystery Surrounds Compromise : It’s Open to Question Whether Delayed Development of Blighted Block is Solution

It would be nice to be able to cheer the recent announcement that the awful “Scene of the Crime” block on Ventura Boulevard is about to be fixed up. Unfortunately, the end is long overdue, and the solution has obvious shortcomings.

“Scene of the Crime” refers not to the block’s felonious ugliness but to a mystery book store. It was the best known of about a dozen businesses east of Woodman Avenue that were evicted in 1988 and 1989.

A plan for a large retail-office complex aroused neighbors’ ire, and the city threw up roadblocks. The developer sued but lost a preliminary round in court. After the weak economy undermined the original project’s feasibility, he proposed a retail and housing project, half low-income and with some public financing.

Now, five years later, the blight will finally give way to one floor of stores and two of elderly people in one-bedroom apartments, if the City Council approves.

Two questions hover over the Scene of the Crime: Why five years of blight? And how good is the solution?

Well, here’s your chance to be a civic sleuth by playing Clue and picking your villain:

The Developer / On the Boulevard / With Eviction Notices. Critics blame developer Jacky Gamliel for throwing out the tenants before his plan was approved. While the fight went on, the buildings went under, attracting vagrants, taggers and rodents.

NIMBYs / In the Neighborhood / With Mike Woo. Galmiel’s lawyer argues that the plan complied with zoning law and needed only routine permits. Protesters had no legal leg to stand on, this version runs, just a pal in City Hall. Woo, the area’s councilman, delayed the permits long enough for adoption of a 1991 boulevard plan that blocked the complex.

Galmiel proposed the new scheme in 1992. Negotiations--wrapped in the mantle of settling a lawsuit despite the city’s early court victory--were done largely by Woo and the area’s councilman since 1992, Zev Yaroslavsky. Financing took 1 1/2 years, during which the city issued toothless demands that the decaying buildings be demolished.

Potential villains aside, maybe the compromise is as good as possible in a time of diminished possibilities. Given the economy, revitalized one-story retailing might be only a nostalgic dream. Mixing residences with shopping is intriguing, and the city badly needs low-income housing.

But the solution has problems. The new project violates the Specific Plan height limit. Critics fear side-street parking, traffic problems, and think the deal was rushed.

Early on, Mike Woo vowed: “I will say no until we get a building that satisfies the community.” Now, even if we can’t cheer, we can sigh with relief and mark the case closed.