Keep CRA Out of Sherman Oaks

The proposal to declare a community redevelopment agency for the Sherman Oaks community is a very troubling one with potentially long-term, devastating consequences.

As a 30-year resident of the Valley with a long history of activism in the community and someone who lost her home in the earthquake, I feel it is imperative that I take a strong public stance in opposition to the current proposals for a CRA in Sherman Oaks.

My rationale is not dissimilar to that expressed by local homeowners and business groups.

There is no question but that public confidence and trust in the CRA are at a well-deserved low (grand jury report, July, 1994). Once a CRA is declared, the agency can wield extraordinary powers over property and citizenry with virtual autonomy. The community sacrifices any real veto powers. The usual requirements for environmental impact reports on planned developments are summarily waived, putting the long-term health of the community in jeopardy. Powers of eminent domain can be exercised unopposed. And perhaps most threatening of all, there is no sunset clause for CRA power, resulting in the possibility that Sherman Oaks will be under the heel of a CRA dictatorship for the foreseeable future.

The myth that CRA monies are a gift is just that--a myth. There is still no such thing as a free lunch. Although sources of revenue for repayment are generally glossed over in debate, the day of reckoning will arrive. “They” say that invocation of the CRA for emergencies is different, that the unchecked authority is not as universal as it ordinarily would be. I have yet to see any definitive proof that this is so.

The only hope for a system of checks and balances with respect to a CRA in Sherman Oaks rests in oversight from the City Council and a citizens group with real veto power. Until the 5th District seat is filled in July, greater irreparable harm to an already beleaguered neighborhood is a distinct possibility. I say Sherman Oaks has suffered enough. We have already waited 10 long months for intervention. It is better to wait another few months than to pay indefinitely.

CRA--go away!

ROBERTA WEINTRAUB

Los Angeles