City Moves to Clean Up Northeast Valley

From blocks of overcrowded apartments in Mission Hills to vacant, weed-infested lots in Pacoima, a large area of the northeast San Fernando Valley is plagued by urban decay and poverty--some say a result of decades of neglect by City Hall.

In response, the city is proposing to create the largest redevelopment project area in Los Angeles, encompassing 6,835 acres of the northeast Valley.

To support its proposal, the city has compiled studies depicting the problems as so severe that only a giant redevelopment project can help the area catch up to the quality of life in other parts of Los Angeles.

People who live in the area proposed for redevelopment are poorer, have fewer nearby jobs, live in more crowded housing, and suffer more greatly depressed property values than the average Los Angeles resident, according to census data and the city studies, which are expected to be released later this month.

Critics acknowledge that some parts of the northeast Valley are blighted, but not the massive area proposed for redevelopment.

They say the studies conducted for the Community Redevelopment Agency should be viewed skeptically, claiming that the CRA has a vested interest in finding blight to justify the agency’s existence. But many residents and business owners in the northeast Valley say the study results ring true to them.

“There is so much poverty in Pacoima,” said Joe Lopez, who owns Roman’s Market. “You either work in a retail store or take one of the few manufacturing jobs, or you travel out of the area to find work.”

After more than a year of study by an army of consultants, city officials have come to the same conclusion, proposing a massive infusion of government financial assistance into the area.

The CRA studies, which use 1990 census data and more up-to-date information on employment, industry and city services, paint this grim picture:

* The area has fallen further behind in income, dropping from 75% of the citywide per capita income in 1980 to 57% in 1990. The per capita income in the area is $9,266, contrasted with the citywide per capita income of $16,188.

* The northeast Valley accounts for nearly 40% of the Valley’s population but only about 25% of its jobs.

* More than 57% of the residents of the project area have not completed a high school education, compared with 33% of residents in the city as a whole, handicapping city efforts to bring higher-paying jobs into the area.

* About 65% of the jobs in the project area are blue-collar and service-oriented, compared with 39% of the jobs countywide.

* Two-thirds of the stores in retail hubs in the area were built before 1970, and most need rehabilitation.

* Between 1994 and 1998, property values in Los Angeles County declined by less than one-third of 1%, while property values in the northeast Valley declined 10%.

* The project area’s average household size, a measure of overcrowding, was 3.4 people, “significantly larger” than the citywide average of 2.97 people, one city study said.

“Families are ‘doubling up’ in housing units designed for small families, contributing to overcrowded housing conditions in the project area,” according to the draft of a report by Keyser Marston Associates Inc. and the CRA.

In response to the litany of social and economic problems, the city has proposed an ambitious, four-decade program that would divert $490 million in property taxes generated by the area into buying and improving land for developers of new housing, office buildings, stores and industrial plants.

The redevelopment project must still be approved by the City Council, which is scheduled to vote on the proposal in early summer.

The agency has proposed adding up to 1.9 million square feet of industrial and commercial space, up to 1,597 residences, and as many as 3,658 jobs to the 40,000 that already exist in the area.

“Clearly, there are a lot of areas of the northeast Valley that need redevelopment, or need some kind of additional help, because existing programs have not worked,” said Lillian Burkenheim, the CRA’s manager for the proposed project.

Despite the national economic boom, the gap between rich and poor is becoming more profound in the northeast Valley, said Neal Dudovitz, executive director of the San Fernando Valley Neighborhood Legal Services, which works with low-income residents.

“Day to day life for many people in Pacoima is not very good,” Dudovitz said. “You have people working for low wages, without any health insurance, squeezing large numbers of people into substandard housing.”

The CRA found that 14% of the buildings in the area are “unsafe to work or live in,” and 36% of all buildings need some kind of rehabilitation.

Under normal circumstances, property tax dollars go downtown into the city’s general fund and might not be distributed in a way that provides a fair return. The advantage of redevelopment is that all property tax dollars generated on the expanding value of a project area are kept in the area to attract developers, renovate and build affordable housing, and fix streets and sidewalks.

Redevelopment law also gives the CRA the power to condemn property and buy it for fair market value as a way of assisting developers.

Critics of the CRA, who have fought to stall the proposal, say problems such as low education levels, inadequate policing and the dearth of parks will only be worsened, not helped, by bringing in an agency with power to siphon property tax dollars away from other city programs.

“The CRA does not have power to improve education. They can’t cure crime,” said Don Lippman, an unsuccessful candidate for the Project Area Committee overseeing the proposed work.

Lippman said if the city would just aggressively enforce its building codes, it would do much to eliminate slum conditions and blight in the area. Still, as the plan moves forward, CRA officials are going to have to overcome widespread skepticism, even among supporters.

Merchants like Joe Lopez and Victor Carreon say decades of neglect by City Hall have contributed to the lack of sidewalks, parks, street lights and other basic services.

Carreon, 58, grew up in the area and owns a business that manufactures oak lamps and furniture.

“That the neighborhoods here are blighted, there is no question,” Carreon said.

“There are serious economic problems. If you go to most neighborhoods there are no street lights, no sidewalks. The city has done nothing for the area. So it is hard to believe the city is going to take the money and do something now.”

Councilman Alex Padilla, who supports redevelopment of the area, said whole blocks around Telfair Elementary School and Pacoima Middle School lack sidewalks and street lights.

The CRA studies confirm the anecdotal information that the area has been shortchanged by City Hall.

The ratio of police officers to residents in the area is 1.3 per 1,000, far below the citywide average of 2.3 per 1,000, the CRA found.

Redevelopment officials also say the city Recreation and Parks Department says there should be 4 acres of parkland for every 1,000 residents, but the project area has only 1.27 acres per 1,000 residents.

In the Mission Hills-Panorama City area, there is only about 0.35 acre of park per 1,000 residents.

Businessman Michael Chang did not need the city studies to tell him the situation is grim.

“This neighborhood needs redevelopment,” said Chang, president of a firm that makes golf club shafts in Pacoima. “The street is so rundown. It is scary. It would take a business with a lot of guts to move in.”