Alex Padilla

Alex Padilla’s first term on the Los Angeles City Council has been anything but tranquil.

The 27-year-old Pacoima resident has found himself thrust into a number of high-profile issues ranging from public funding for the Democratic National Convention to the battle over cable Internet access.

In his own district, however, the issue that has generated the most controversy has been the Community Redevelopment Agency’s proposal for a massive project in the northeast San Fernando Valley, a concept that Padilla first embraced, then rejected.

The CRA has been flash point for debate in the Valley for decades. Public criticism of the agency and its tactics has been long and loud. And earlier this year, a Times analysis found that the agency’s efforts to revitalize North Hollywood after two decades and an expenditure of $117 million in public funds was largely ineffective.

Originally conceived as a $490-million project encompassing 6,835 acres, the CRA plan for the northeast Valley quickly became a political hot potato. While Padilla defended the project as a way to bring improved housing, more businesses and new jobs to his district, opponents accused the councilman of trying to ramrod redevelopment by orchestrating the selection of a citizens committee to carry out his wishes. Many complained that the plan would control too much land and push out local merchants and residents while wasting tax dollars.

At the height of the debate, police were called to break up a fistfight between supporters and opponents of the plan at a community forum. And Padilla was accused of using his staff to improperly campaign on city time for a community advisory panel.

Against this backdrop, Padilla called for a two-year delay on the project, saying he no longer had faith in the CRA’s competence. Although that may be true, the political heat generated by the project was clearly a factor in his decision.

The Times recently spoke to Padilla about the controversy surrounding the CRA project and how he plans to revitalize his district.

* * *

Question: Why did you decide to ask for a delay in the redevelopment project?

Answer: First and foremost was my uneasiness about the CRA staff that was assigned to the northeast Valley project area and their ability to do the job right. Over the course of the last year, we’ve been looking to fine-tune this project that was begun under my predecessor. I’m sure it was well-intentioned. But it wasn’t done well. The project area was too big, and I’ve been working to reduce the size. The issues and concerns about the use of eminent domain were still outstanding, so I’ve been working to address that. I could have continued to work to fine-tune the project, but at some point I had to look at who was actually going to be implementing and administrating the program. And with the limited resources the CRA was dedicating to a project of such large magnitude, I just didn’t have the confidence that it was sufficient to do the job and do it right.

Q: You have been quoted as saying until you have confidence in the CRA you won’t allow them in your district. Given the CRA’s recent record, do you think the agency can change and win your support in two years’ time?

A: Possibly. There are currently some audits of the CRA taking place. Part of my responsibility is to await the results of those audits and see if certain recommendations are made for changing the agency’s practices. There are also some reforms being instituted. How the agency is managed has been an ongoing discussion for years, certainly. And then there is the political landscape. A year from now there will be a new mayor, and that potentially can mean changes in the upper management of the agency. So I want to let those uncertainties settle before I determine whether or not they’re able to do the job.

Q: One CRA administrator said you were uncomfortable with the project, not the agency itself. Is that true?

A: It’s a combination of both, the project and how well it’s been defined. There’s still a lot of work that needs to be done. But there’s also the question of the agency itself . . . .

Q: Do you still believe in the redevelopment process?

A: I still believe in redevelopment in concept, and I think it can be part of a successful formula for economic revitalization and job creation. But concept is not always reality. And looking at the reality of the project as it’s currently described and the agency and their existing convictions, I just don’t have the confidence. I hope in two years’ time to see an improvement, to see additional resources.

Q: Yet redevelopment has worked in other cities.

A: I’ve seen the Gaslight District in San Diego. I’ve seen Silicon Valley and parts of San Jose that are booming right now. A lot of that has been due to redevelopment. I even look to our neighboring city, the city of San Fernando, and their thriving downtown area. Again, that’s a product of their redevelopment agency. So we know that redevelopment can work. But if it’s going to work, it needs to be done responsibly, and that’s what I’m striving for within my district.

Q: There are enterprise and empowerment zones in the northeast Valley. Are they working?

A: They’re somewhat active in the district. Certainly a better job can be done with those as well. I don’t think the program administrators are being as aggressive or as creative in reaching out to businesses that need the help.

Q: Did the politics of secession enter into your decision on redevelopment?

A: A project area of this size would complicate the secession process in terms of determining and calculating the existing neutrality of a separation. That’s part of my thinking. But I haven’t taken a position on secession, and I wouldn’t want any movement or progress on this to be interpreted as being on one side or the other. I look forward to the LAFCO [Local Agency Formation Commission] study and eagerly await the results. Whether or not there is secession down the road, the study should provide valuable information on how to improve delivering city services to communities like the 7th District.

Q: Do you believe that redevelopment in your district could be better accomplished if a new city were formed in the San Fernando Valley?

A: I don’t know. The issue of secession itself is one that raises a lot of questions: What’s the structure of that new city government going to be, are taxes going to have to go up, who’s going to police the streets, are parks and libraries still going to be open? To answer questions about whether or not a redevelopment project area will work better in a new city is, I think, premature.

Q: You raised the question, so I’ll ask it: Do you think the redevelopment process would work better under a new mayor?

A: Possibly. It depends on who that mayor is and what kind of leadership and talent they recruit to serve on the CRA, what kind of talent and expertise they call upon to serve as heads and general managers of the important departments that the city has.

Q: This entire redevelopment process has been highly politicized. At one point you accused “outsiders” of causing problems. Why do you think that is?

A: A large segment of people who have been opposed to this are not from my district but have come in from other areas where they’ve opposed CRA efforts. Within my district, I’ve seen people come into my office and even call me at home asking if I’m going to take away their house. And that’s utterly ridiculous. I would not do that. My own family is one of those who have lived in the northeast Valley for almost 30 years. That’s not what the CRA is about. That’s not my vision for bringing about change in the northeast Valley. I do believe the people that we’ve talked to, once we’ve informed and educated them about redevelopment in concept, are supportive, but until there’s much more of a comfort level with redevelopment, I felt it most appropriate to put a pause on things for a while.

Q: Can you accomplish redevelopment without eminent domain?

A: I think if used appropriately and responsibly, eminent domain can be very effective. I remember one of the homeowner groups asked me about eminent domain because they had heard that I was going to bulldoze half of Pacoima and build another Disneyland. And this is the same group that had been complaining about this one bar in the area that we know has had problems with the police. So I reassured them, “Look, I’m not taking away your homes; that’s not part of the plan here.” But in explaining the use of eminent domain, I pointed to the bar and I said, “That’s the kind of place where I would encourage eminent domain to be used.” Because there’s an over-concentration of alcohol and liquor establishments in the northeast Valley. Too many problem properties like this--that would be a case where I could support using eminent domain and replace that establishment with something much more positive, much more productive for the community, like a bookstore.

Q: Who would make the decision on whether to use eminent domain?

A: Eventually it would be up to the agency. I would be able to pull items, if I chose, out of the agency’s hands and into the City Council. But most of the time the agency acts on matters with input or recommendations from a community group, whether it’s an elected advisory committee or an appointed advisory committee.

Q: Do you think, in two years’ time, if everybody had a better handle on this thing, that redevelopment could be accomplished without all the political fallout that has marked the process so far?

A: Number 1, it’s incumbent upon the agency to regain my trust and my confidence and my support. Second, I mentioned several of the variables that have yet to play out in terms of the audits, the reforms, potential changes in not only the mayor’s office but in the CRA. And at the same time, we’ll continue to talk to educate people in the community. We will break ground on things over the next two years. We will do ribbon-cuttings. And at that point, I hope that my district is educated and informed and comfortable enough to be able to move forward. But if I don’t feel the agency’s ready, that we’ve fine-tuned the project enough, then not only will the district not be comfortable, I won’t be comfortable.

Q: Do you think that this has damaged you politically?

A: I don’t think it’s damaged me politically. I know what the feedback is that I get from my constituents. And 99% of it still is very positive, very upbeat. They were supportive of me even during this process. It’s unfortunate that it turned out this way for now, but there’s too much work to do, there’s too much already going on to improve the northeast Valley, to let this hold us back.

Q: If this process might take more than two years to resolve, what do you say to your constituents who have to tolerate and live in these blighted conditions?

A: From the beginning, I knew that the CRA alone wasn’t going to be the answer to all the issues, whether it’s helping our local businesses or creating jobs or removing blight. I know the need doesn’t go away, the challenge still remains, and we have to continue to work to address those issues in other ways. I mean, I can still work with public works on graffiti abatement. I can still work with our economic development department and recruit businesses and create jobs. The situation is by no means static. What this means is that I won’t have what can be a powerful tool at my disposal for the next few years, but there are a number of others that I can use.

Q: Given this delay, do you think you can accomplish what you set out to do in your district?

A: I certainly believe that I can make a difference. We’re already making a difference with some of the businesses that we’ve worked with already. We’re bringing in a police station, we’re bringing the Children’s Museum out to the northeast Valley. Things are happening. God willing and voters willing, I’ll be around for 10 years, and in that time we’ll have as great an impact as we can, cleaning up the streets, removing blight, creating a better quality of life for both residents and businesses. I also have to think in the long term. It’ll take a generation to truly bring our community up to the level we all dream about it being, where everybody strives to be in the upper middle class, everybody dreams of owning their own home, everybody dreams of kids graduating from schools with top grades and going to the top universities in the country. As much as I’d love for it to happen overnight, it probably won’t. You know the efforts will continue long after my administration. I can only hope that come 25 years from now, things are much better and we can point back to some of my accomplishments while I’ve been on the council as having laid a foundation for that progress.