Building a Case in Northeast Valley

From blocks of overcrowded apartments in Mission Hills to vacant, weed-covered 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 Los Angeles City Hall.

In response, the city is proposing 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 provide a quality of life similar to other parts of Los Angeles.

Compared with residents in other parts of Los Angeles, people in the proposed redevelopment area generally are poorer, more must travel out of the community to their jobs, and more live in crowded conditions on property valued far below most areas of the city, according to census data and the city studies, expected to be released later this month.

Critics acknowledged that some parts of the northeast Valley are blighted, but not the massive area proposed for redevelopment. They said the studies conducted for the Community Redevelopment Agency should be viewed skeptically, because the agency has a vested interest in finding blight to justify its existence. But many residents and business owners in the northeast Valley say the study results ring true.

“There is so much poverty in Pacoima,” said Joe Lopez, owner of 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 for 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 annual per capita income in 1980 to 57% in 1990. The per capita income in the area is $9,266, compared 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 in Los Angeles County.

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

* Between 1994 and 1998, property values in the county declined at less than one-third of a percent, while property values in the northeast Valley declined 10%.

* The project area’s average household size, a measure of overcrowding, is 3.4 residents, significantly larger than the citywide average of 2.97 residents, 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.

Project Aimed at Social, Economic Woes

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 tax revenues generated by the area to the purchase and improvement of land for developers of new housing, office buildings, stores and industrial plants.

The redevelopment project must be approved by the City Council, with a vote scheduled for early summer.

The agency has proposed adding up to 1.9 million square feet of industrial and commercial space, up to 1,597 additional residences and 3,658 jobs to the present 40,000.

“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, according to Neal Dudovitz, executive director of 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 were “unsafe to work or live in,” and 36% of all buildings needed some kind of rehabilitation.

Under normal circumstances, property tax dollars go into the city’s general fund and may not be earmarked for particular areas. The advantage of redevelopment is that all property tax dollars generated on the expanding value of a project area are kept in that area for use 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.

CRA critics, who have fought to stall the proposal, say problems such as low education levels, inadequate policing and a dearth of parks will only be worsened by bringing in an agency with power to divert property tax dollars 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 project.

Lippman said that if the city would aggressively enforce its building codes, it would do much to eliminate slum conditions and blight in the area.

Decades of Neglect Cited By Merchants

As the plan moves forward, CRA officials are going to have to overcome skepticism, from critics as well as supporters.

Merchants like Joe Lopez and Victor Carreon say decades of neglect by City Hall have contributed to the area’s problems.

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.”

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

The CRA studies support previous reports 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, with the citywide average 2.3 per 1,000, the CRA found.

Redevelopment officials also say the project area has only 1.27 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents, well below the city Recreation and Parks Department standard of four acres for every 1,000.

The Mission Hills-Panorama City area has only about .35 acres of parks 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 run down, it is scary. It would take a business with a lot of guts to move in.”

(BEGIN TEXT OF INFOBOX / INFOGRAPHIC)

Growth and Decay: The Northeast Valley

A plan for massive redevelopment of the northeast San Fernando Valley would spend $490 million over 40 years for new housing, office buildings, stores and industrial plants. Officials say that in many key measures of quality of life, the area is threatened with blight and permanent decay.

Northeast Valley statistics and facts:

* The per capita income for the area is $9,266 compared with the citywide per capita income of $16,188.

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

* About 65% of the jobs are blue collar and service oriented compared with 39% countywide.

* Between 1994 and 1996, property values in Los Angeles County declined at less than a third of a percent while property values in the northeast Valley declined 10%.

Source: Community Redevelopment Agency