Exactly one year ago this past week I spoke to Huell Howser, producer of the very popular, nonpolitical, “California Gold” public access TV Series regarding an upcoming series he was about to commence. You can see that July 29, 2008, blog post, and the 30 reader comments, on the Orange Juice.
This follow up is based on today’s LA Times where they report Huell appearing at a redevelopment sight in the Signal Hill area of LA.
Our July 2008 discussion was triggered by discovering that Huell was hired by the state Redevelopment Agency to visit a group of projects around the state to promote the alleged benefits and success of same. This 14 segment series was to be named “California’s Communities.”
In my phone discussion I asked if he planned to cover redevelopment projects that were about to commence or those that were not “success stories.” To illustrate my point I mentioned the city of Baldwin Park where hundreds of homes and businesses will shortly be visited by Bisno Development’s bulldozer(s).
In that discussion Huell told me he has “no political agenda” and that he “keeps politics out of it,” a reference to his multiple TV series. He did provide a list of projects that will be visited. When I asked him to include redevelopment stories that were not successful, or to mention that they were not all a success story as defined by CRA, Huell stated “they (CRA) are underwriting the series…they are paying me.”
So much for fair and balanced topic coverage. As he said “the series will not be pro-redevelopment,” and as a full year has passed, I will now divulge some of the 14 project sites mentioned by Huell in that call. Temecula, Clovis, railroad bridge and the Alameda Naval Station.
Let me close by stating that we enjoy his traditional KCET reports and are saddened that he has decided to accept one side of the redevelopment story as hundreds or thousands of Californians have become victims to redevelopment bulldozers when they do not wish to sell their homes and businesses.
Sounds like the law needs to be changed, and not so much Huell.
cook. To some degree the law was changed. Voters approved Prop 99 that has holes larger than swiss cheese. If we had protection then why are homeowners in Long beach hiring the Institute for Justice to protect their private property that is not for sale?
As to Huell. He told me that his programs are “non political” and yet refused my request for equal time to present an opposing statement. He’s right. He sold out as confirmed to me as well as today’s LA Times report
If Howser does a series on the California Missions (as he has done) but fails to visit a gritty, struggling, urban church, does that mean he’s being political?
It’s ridiculous. Howser is NOT an investigative reporter and, as such, he certainly shouldn’t feel obligated to present alternate points of view. To expect that from a show like “California’s Gold” is totally unrealistic. A show like SoCal Connected would be far more appropriate.
anon.This series is being called California Communities and will be biased based on whom is providing the funds to produce it. The CRA
My issue is that Huell toldme he is non-political proving that everyone has a price.
Thank god Arnold is stealing from the redevelopment agencies.
a second aside.
If the Howard Jarvis Tax Payers Association want to stop redevelopment abuse, they need to leave rent control alone and initiatives against redevelopment abuse will pass. That is why I voted NO ON 98 and 99 last year.
Matt.
I agree with both you and Arnold in taking money from redevelopment agency coffers.
some of us, 100,000 in fact, live in Mission Viejo.
Back in 1992 we won an award for being the “finest planned community in America.” That same year a major chunk of our commercial zone was included into a redevelopment project area under a bogus declaration of “blight.”
When I discussed this action with our former city manager he said don’t blame us, change the law.
The law was changed at that same time (AB 1290-Phil Eisenberg.) When I testified in Sacramento and mentioned this abuse the League of Cities lobbyist and Tom Torlakson both said we were under the radar screen, just before AB 1290 went into effect, and could not justify declaring “blight” in the same area of MV today.
The point is that city redevelopment agencies are fully aware of the law and how to cut corners.
email comment;
Thanks……I grew up just north of Temecula. What a nightmare.
Old Town Placerville just voted tonight to pay for a consultant to do redevelopment for the city. Placerville City Council, that voted for this, will also be the redevelopment agency. They used ANOVA (architects) to help pick the consultant. ANOVA builds schools and hospitals and would likely be the designer for the “new look of Placerville”. ANOVA bought an old brick building at the end of town, moved it, blasted the plaster off of the outside of it, losing it’s historical significance then wrapped a new modern building around it. Most people in town feel pretty ill about what they have done to this historic site. Unfortunately, the council likes that look and would like to continue that style up and down Main street. The interesting thing is that at least 3 Council / Agency members own buildings in the redevelopment zone. I just recently emailed Howser to see if he would do a show on El Dorado County and our histoic gold heritage. (People moving here know nothing about that and are trying to reinvent us – we are quickly turning into the new box mall conquest.) Did I mention they are also working on bringing in a “round about” so they can knock out a few other historic sites?
Sue. If you can please send me an email as we might be able to help your cause.
Larry Gilbert lgpwr@aol.com