Garden Grove No Eden in This Plan

One of the first places I visited in Orange County was a home in Garden Grove. It must have been sometime in the 1970s, and I could swear we played lawn darts and barbecued. All these years later, that’s still how I see Garden Grove: a backyard with people playing lawn darts and something cooking on the grill.

That scene might play well in the family photo albums, but it doesn’t pay the bills. And that, to one degree or another, is the argument City Hall likely will make Tuesday night when planners argue for claiming some homes (and backyards) as part of a redevelopment proposal to boost the city’s bank account.

“The issue for Garden Grove is that we’re one of the poorest communities in Orange County,” says City Manager George Tindall. “If you count property tax and sales tax and vehicle licensing tax, all those revenues, and divide by the population, only Stanton is less than we are.”

He says the city has one of the lowest city employee-to-resident ratios in the county. For example, he says, the Police Department has the same number of employees it had 12 years ago, when census figures show the city had 22,000 fewer residents.

At Tuesday night’s public hearing, the council will hear recommendations on targeting 150 to 200 acres of property, for the sole purpose of making it part of a long-range redevelopment project along Harbor Boulevard.

“Most of that, unfortunately,” Tindall says, “is single-family homes.”

Unfortunate, Tindall says, because “no public agency wants to include single-family homes in these [redevelopment] areas.”

No doubt the council also will hear from residents who condemn the city for even thinking about displacing families--even with compensation--just to make money. It is a philosophical argument--private homes versus public revenue--that city planners generally are loath to decide.

The issue is front and center because, among other things, the council might have to invoke eminent domain to get some residential properties. Garden Grove need only look to Cypress, which is invoking eminent domain on church-held property in order to build a commercial center. But Cypress isn’t talking about forcing residents from their homes.

Eminent domain, Tindall says, “is a bad, bad word. The City Council does not ever want to use that tool unless absolutely necessary.”

But if a city hopes to lure new business investment, it has to be able to deliver land, Tindall says.

There is, however, a crossing-of-the-Rubicon element to using eminent domain on owner-occupied homes. That isn’t lost on Tindall, who says it would set a precedent in Garden Grove, even while quickly noting that he doesn’t subscribe to the idea that it would redefine the city.

“We’ll always be a bedroom community,” he says. “Seventy percent of our land use is single-family. We’re always going to be single-family. This is a small piece of the city--150 acres--and is something that is not going to happen tomorrow [but over 20 years].”

Still, Tindall isn’t trying to have it both ways. He knows that City Hall would be making a statement just by voting to invoke eminent domain. The five-member council hasn’t indicated which way it is leaning, although Mayor Bruce Broadwater has all but said the redevelopment is essential.

“Is the public benefit outweighed by the private-party interest?” Tindall asks. “That’s what makes this issue tough.”

Luckily for him, he doesn’t have to vote on it and put a council seat on the line.

Still, he’ll no doubt feel the chill Tuesday night from some residents who will ask why the city should be empowered to take their homes.

“We like to be liked,” Tindall says. “This is the hard part of the job.”

*

Dana Parsons’ column appears Wednesdays, Fridays and Sundays. Readers may reach Parsons by calling (714) 966-7821 or by writing to him at The Times’ Orange County edition, 1375 Sunflower Ave., Costa Mesa, CA 92626, or by e-mail to dana.parsons@latimes.com.