Diverse Views on Stadium Plan Are Expressed at Carson Forum

As the city of Carson continues its pursuit of a National Football League team, some residents at a public forum Saturday said they supported the idea while others voiced concerns that a stadium would increase traffic and lower their property values.

The sometimes contentious meeting at a city park--attended by about 120 residents, city officials and representatives of Hollywood superagent Michael Ovitz--was the second question-and-answer session on the stadium proposal this year. What was clear by meeting’s end was that not all residents support the proposal to build a combination football stadium and mall on a former toxic waste dump.

Several speakers said an NFL team would provide an economic boost to the city, while others said financing portions of the project through bonding could prove a financial burden.

Many also said that even though they supported the project they wanted the people of Carson--not the City Council--to make that decision.

“I have been in favor of a football stadium. I played football. I love football. But I’m against the way the City Council has forced this on the city of Carson,” said Carl Robinson, a member of the Compton Community College board of trustees.

Resident Brian Raber added: “Mini-banners around town state that Compton supports a football team. How do we know that if no vote has been taken?”

The mission-style stadium, proposed by Ovitz and a group of investors, would be built on a 157-acre parcel near the intersection of the San Diego and Harbor freeways. The city of Carson has pledged to provide up to $180 million, mostly through bonds, for the project.

Last week, the NFL voted to award a team to Los Angeles if certain conditions are met within six months, including a solid financing plan. A proposal to renovate the Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum and the Carson plan are the two contenders to house the team.

The league’s 14-member expansion committee is due in Los Angeles in the next few weeks to tour both sites and is expected to decide by May where the team will be housed.

Speaking at the afternoon session at Veterans Park, Councilman Daryl Sweeney said the results of a council election this month indicated the public’s approval of the stadium plan. Candidates who supported an NFL team won, while candidates who spoke out against the project lost, he said. “I don’t think it’s a referendum, but it speaks volumes about the sentiments of the public.”

As residents took turns at the podium, each was given three minutes to query the panel of six city officials and one Ovitz representative onstage, or to simply speak their minds.

“I live within a mile of the project,” one woman said. “It’s going to affect the quality of my life and my property value.”

But James Ellis, an attorney representing Ovitz, cautioned residents against “overly romanticizing” the value of property adjacent to contaminated land.

“You need a project of this magnitude . . . if the city wants the environmental problems to be corrected.”

Councilman Daryl Sweeney added: “Right now that’s a dump site that’s worth zero.” Developing the site and generating tax revenues, he said, would enhance city services and improve Carson’s quality of life.

“If we have a football stadium in here, there’s only one way the property value can go, and that’s up,” said one 35-year Carson resident to loud applause.

Before the meeting began, Ovitz’s representatives sought to dispel reports about efforts being made to merge Ovitz’s group with the rival investment group led by Ed Roski to bring an NFL team to the Los Angeles Coliseum.

“There are no active discussions at this time between Michael and any of the members of Roski’s team,” Ellis said.

“The important thing to realize is that it’s not Michael Ovitz’s decision. It’s not Ed Roski’s decision,” he said.

“It’s up to the NFL in terms of the owner and the site.”