Development Plan Hits Community Opposition

Gideon Kanner’s “Development Proposal a Good Remedy for Earthquake Victims” (Feb. 5) provides some stark truths about historical practices of the Community Redevelopment Agency but inaccurately assess the situation in Sherman Oaks.

Mr. Kanner correctly states that redevelopment breaks down local business interests, “funds powerful, unchecked municipal bureaucracies and enriches redevelopers at the expense of local taxing authorities and the community at large” by diverting property tax revenue away from the city’s general fund.

A minimum of $54 million will be diverted from the general fund to pay for Sherman Oaks’ plan. The return to Sherman Oaks, after various pass-through expenses and administrative costs paid directly to the CRA, will be approximately $11 million. That is the best-case scenario, if the CRA performs responsibly.

Mr. Kanner summarily assumes a need for CRA action in Sherman Oaks exists, merely because the City Council says it is so. However, this is unclear. While the community is visibly damaged, the unanswered question is whether this is a temporary or long-term problem.

Mr. Kanner errs in his assertion that the plan in Sherman Oaks “is to provide low-cost rebuilding loans.” This is patently untrue. In fact had such a provision been expressly written into the plan, much of the dispute between residents and the CRA could have been avoided. It was the CRA’s refusal to commit to such action that caused serious concerns as to the agency’s intent and the effectiveness of a mandate-free plan.

In addition, Mr. Kanner’s reliance on a quotation by Matt Epstein indicating a desire to have vacant lots rather than large development was negligent. The quotation was retracted by the journal which printed it within days, as an error had been made in its printing. Mr. Epstein supports “development, so long as it is market based and not artificially supported by the CRA.”

While development may, in theory, have much to offer, its historical and current practices, lack of commitment, wasteful spending and community abuse make it an inappropriate tool for stabilization of Sherman Oaks after last year’s earthquake. While Pacoima may embrace the opportunity, Mr. Kanner neglected to point out the hardest-hit community in the Northridge earthquake, namely Northridge, said flatly: “No thanks!”

CHUCK BETZ

Sherman Oaks