Last Tuesday I was informed that Huell Howser, founder and host of the California Gold TV series, was about to launch a 14 segment series named “California’s Communities” that will address the topic of redevelopment statewide. It is important for viewers to know that funding of this endeavor is from the California Redevelopment Association, CRA,whose Agenda is to expand redevelopment.
I called Huell and asked him 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 100’s of homes and businesses will shortly be visited by Bisno Development’s bulldozer(s).
In our 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 an initial list of projects that will be visited. When I asked him to include redevelopment stories that were not successful, or to mention that they are not all a success story as defined by the CRA, Huell stated “they (CRA) are underwriting the series…they are paying me.” So much for fair and balanced topic coverage.
According to the CRA newsletter, local redevelopment agencies are encouraged to submit projects for consideration that “exemplifies the value of redevelopment.”
Trust me when I say that the CRA will not accept any redevelopment project that failed to live up to the hype. So don’t expect to see any of them on KCET, LA’s Public TV station, whose web site reads in part: “a forum for discourse and news…”
It is easy to do a neighborhood “drive by” from the comfort of your vehicle. But, if you turn the clock back to events leading up to that redevelopment project, especially those involving eminent domain, you might see a different picture in your camera lens.
Exactly ten years ago I was at the Capitol with (Senator) Tom Mc Clintock and a Fresno victim of eminent domain named Ronzel “Ralph” Cato. Statewide activists met Ralph when he testified on behalf of AB 923 redevelopment reform in Jan of 1988.
If you travel to Fresno today you will not find Ralph Cato’s home. It’s gone. The story get’s worse. Larry. Who is Ralph Cato? Why do you single him out?
I would argue that every American has a dream of home ownership. Michael W. Aube, (former?) State Director, USDA Rural Development, stated it best. “Home ownership is an essential foundation upon which families build their hopes and dreams.” In Ralph’s’ case he was a fifth generation African-American who shared that same home ownership dream and was the first in his entire family genealogy to achieve it. For a brief period his family enjoyed that common dream until being notified that the Fresno redevelopment agency had other plans for his property. A Roxford Foods turkey processing plant would generate more revenue than his property taxes. Ralph did not wish to sell but he was overwhelmed by big government’s eminent domain powers. Sadly he did not have the Institute for Justice, or similar law firms, to come forward in his defense. He not only lost his home but because of his fight to save it, it cost him his marriage.
Huell. Are you planning to locate and interview Ralph, if you can find him?
Perhaps Huell will visit Dodger Stadium which is celebration it’s 50th birthday. While he mentioned many of the projects he plans to visit in our telephone call, as stated above, I will not divulge that list.
Chavez Ravine. Do any of the juice readers know the history of today’s Dodger Stadium?
Let me share that background as the locals are long gone and so are their homes.
Located in a valley a few miles from downtown Los Angeles, Chavez Ravine was home to generations of Mexican Americans. Named for Julian Chavez, one of the first Los Angeles County Supervisors in the 1800s, Chavez Ravine was a self-sufficient and tight-knit community, a rare example of small town life within a large urban metropolis. For decades, its residents ran their own schools and churches and grew their own food on the land. Chavez Ravine’s three main neighborhoods—Palo Verde, La Loma and Bishop—were known as a “poor man’s Shangri La.”
The death knell for Chavez Ravine began ringing in 1949 when the Federal Housing Act of 1949 granted money to cities from the federal government to build public housing projects. Los Angeles Mayor Fletcher Bowron voted and approved a housing project containing 10,000 new units—thousands of which would be located in Chavez Ravine. Viewed by neighborhood outsiders as a “vacant shantytown” and an “eyesore,” Chavez Ravine’s 300-plus acres were earmarked by the Los Angeles City Housing Authority as a prime location for redevelopment. In July 1950, all residents of Chavez Ravine received letters from the city telling them that they would have to sell their homes in order to make the land available for the proposed Elysian Park Heights. The residents were told that they would have first choice for these new homes, which included two dozen 13-story buildings and more than 160 two-story bunkers, in addition to newly rebuilt playgrounds and schools. Some residents resisted the orders to move and were soon labeled “squatters,” while others felt they had no choice and relocated. Most received insubstantial or no compensation for their homes and property. Using the power of eminent domain, which permitted the government to purchase property from private individuals in order to construct projects for the public good, the city of Los Angeles bought up the land and leveled many of the existing buildings. By August 1952, Chavez Ravine was essentially a ghost town. The land titles would never be returned to the original owners, and in the following years the houses would be sold, auctioned and even set on fire, used as practice sites by the local fire department.
Yes, we celebrate 50th years of the LA Dodgers but we cannot stand in the way of progress. That’s the problem with only visiting cities and their projects after the redevelopment has been completed.
The following can be found on Huell Howser’s web site. Notice where he says he will travel the state with an “open heart and an open mind.”
“When Huell Howser moved to Los Angeles in 1981 from his home state of Tennessee to become a reporter for KCBS-TV in Los Angeles, he had no idea he’d fall in love…with California. His enthusiasm for his new home inspired the idea for the television series that started it all, California’s Gold. Huell had a simple idea: if he traveled the state with an open heart and an open mind, a microphone and a camera, he would uncover a treasure of California stories.”
Respectfully Huell. What happened to your “open heart and open mind” which we all have appreciated for so many years?
Will you offer equal program exposure consideration for former, current and future victims of redevelopment and eminent domain and listen to their stories?
We can provide a lengthy list of California victims, from the Oregon to the Mexican borders, who would gladly share their experiences with you.
The bottom line is that this “feel good” series will not tell the whole story. Let me use another illustration.
On the radio this morning I heard a report from the Board of Realtors stating that housing prices are down 16 percent from a year ago. Yesterdays Dow Closed at 11,131, a decline of 20 percent from the high of 14,000 on July 19, 2007.
Think about this possibility. What if your local city government forced you to liquidate all your stock holdings yesterday? Now think about the property owners in Baldwin Park who are about to lose their homes and businesses in a down real estate market when they are not willing nor prepared to sell?
Juice readers. This is but another facet of the redevelopment cancer that Huell cannot capture in his camera lens.
Well, I’m all for uncovering redevelopment failures and exposing them to the light of day. But is a Huell Howser show the right venue for that? I mean, realistically, his shows on PBS have never been about hard-hitting investigative journalism…they’re about entertainment. It’s a bit unrealistic of you to expect the new series to be any different…regardless of who’s funding it.
anon.
We do enjoy his programs and I told him so. However, this is a new direction for someone who has kept politics out of him multiple programs.
Huell did not offer to perform a similar series on behalf of those who were victimized. That’s a sad fact of life. He also rejected my request to point out that not all projects have met the original expectations. Have you patronized Triangle Square in Costa Mesa? I don’t think the camera crew will be making that stop.
Larry: Why would you expect him to change the format of HIS program? You have a good concern, but you picked the wrong program.
Larry, again, I think expecting a Huell Howser show to address those concerns is unrealistic, to say the least.
I would, however, expect that sort of coverage from a show like “Bill Moyers Journal”.
A former resident of LA called to share his anger about my post. It rekindled his angst with the Dodger organization and former LA Mayor Norris Poulson who pushed for the gifting of this valuable land to the O’Malley family for the eventual Dodger Stadium. For the 50 years of its existence, even though he is a big sports fan, he refuses to attend any of their games. In his reference to the former property owners he stated “those people got screwed.” In his assessment this was ” a complete travesty of justice.”
Chavez Ravine reminds me of the large number of eminent domain victims I met at the Institute for Justice or our MORR/CURE conferences.
From the Internet I found the following text:
O’Malley’s move to Chavez Ravine did not occur without major controversy. Vicious inter-city politics included allegations of Mayor Poulson making illegal deals with the Dodgers while betraying the public….
Email response:
Good article, Larry. Tell me the CRA has no agenda here! Tell me he’s keeping politics out of his show by accepting their money and presenting only their side of the story. Ridiculous.
This project sounds similar to the California’s Water series (produced with underwriting from ACWA, the Association of California Water Agencies). These Associations are partnerships of mostly-governmental agencies (with, here and there, and independent utility or Chamber of Commerce involved). By definition, their work is always up for public scruitiny.
Howser, as in the past, will be focusing on the “success stories”. As has been said above, this is in keeping with the other shows he’s produced, and also with the expectations of his audience. While the California’s Water series focused on The Good News, it did not make any claim that everything is sweetness and light regarding water in California. It did not claim there are no areas of concern about, say, water allocations, the Peripheral Canal, federal versus State funding for repairing infrastructure, the competing needs of the environment & fish populations & recreation & agriculture & urban water use, the Owens Valley legacy, etc. It just didn’t make those issues the focus of the series.
People watching did learn plenty about the how water works in the state, and that information will be an asset for anyone who has to deal with any water issue — controversial or not — as a voter or in their local area. Good news isn’s automatically lying, and, in fact, is as much a part of the equation of understand as talking about failures or mistakes. One of the reasons Howser’s shows work is that they’re a way to learn something and relax a bit at the same time. Not only is this an especially efficient form of education, it also provides a base from which people who need or want to delve deeper can get started. Most people over 25 (and many under 25) simply cannot run in righteous-outrage mode constantly, and many of us don’t believe that dwelling on the negative is more important or more valid than the positive. While it’s fashionable to go Post Modernist and talk about how EVERYTHING in the world is HORRIBLE, that’s simply not true. No, this series will not tell the whole story, and, yes, coverage should continue from a variety of sources about those issues, but that doesn’t mean all coverage of the positive aspects shouldn’t exist.
Q: Was Ralph Cato’s home foreclosed upon prior to 1989? (That’s when a Roxford plant closed in Frenso.) I’m not finding any more current references to this case.
If this foreclosure did happen before 1989, isn’t is possible that the situation has improved a bit since then? Another newspaper complaining about this series was talking about urban renewal screw-ups from the 1970s.
Maybe one reason to focus on The Good News a bit is that, just maybe, redevelopment agencies are starting to get a clue, or are trying to get a clue, and efforts like this series are part of their outreach and public education efforts. How many of the “mistakes” you keep talking about are over twenty years old?
when they start taping the programs, i say picket huell howser, forcing him to keep his camera angle narrow so his viewers won’t see the protesters, which will also show the narrow view that “exemplifies the value of redevelopment.”
Larry
50 years later the anger and resentment towards the City of Los Angeles and the City Council by former residents of Chavez Ravine is as great as it was then. I can remember seeing the police removing residents and the bulldozers coming on KNXT(KCBS) ch2/KNBC ch 4/KTLA ch 5/KABC ch7 /KHJ (ch9)/KTTV ch 11 (TV home of the Dodgers with Bill Welch)/and ch 13 (? call letters)
remember the move to LA was engineered by Dems on both the City Council (Rosalind Wyman) and the LA County Board of Supervisors (Kenny Hahn father of Jim Hahn). The Dodgers also started broadcasting in Spanish at the time-Unheard of
http://www.pbs.org/independentlens/chavezravine/
Not that I don’t have my quarrels with PBS, i.e. re. Glaxo Smith Kline, but at least they didn’t drop the ball on this one. [snark]Of course, since this documentary doesn’t talk about good outcomes from urban development, it isn’t BALANCED, and, therefore, shouldn’t exist.[/snark]
Chavez Ravine did not happen because of a deal with the Dodgers. It was the City of L.A. Housing Authority who purchased the land to build affordable housing but it fell through. It was later that the deal was struck for Dodger Stadium.
From a former elected official in Costa Mesa:
“No list would be complete without Triangle Square in CM”
Kell Brigan.
From what we were told Roxbury only survived one year. A competitor took over their operations.
While I spent a few hours with Ralph in a luncheon as well as fduring his testimony to the assembyl Committee on Housing and Develpoment I don ot recall is providing any dates of that “taking.” I do have a video of that panel presentation and might view it again.
As to more current examples I will gladly meet with you in Baldwin Park, LA County, and introduce you to CURRENT victims beginning with James Treasure, President of Baldwin Park Association and Board Member of CARA.
While I know some of the projects to be shown I do not know how long ago they were completed. Therefore both sides can make the same argument with regard to timing.
Two years ago I met Susette Kelo of the New London CT Kelo case which became a world wide story. Spending an entire weekend with over 100 victims or potential victims, from Riviera Beach, Fl and Red Bank NJ to Lakewood Ohio, Arlington TX, lorain Ohio, Ardmore PA to Brooklyn NY and beyond shows the ugly side of redevelopment that sadly will not appear on Huell’s program. It’s about the struggle humans endure trying to fight back their local government with their limited resources.
Sorry folks.
Too often my typing on this keyboard is far from the text which I hope to convey.
Schwarzenegger Centrist Republican Post #9
Thank you!!!
That’s the real story that you will not learn about from the CRA or any local redevelopment agency.
As a Brooklyn Dodger fan I still recall the move from Ebbets Field.
Sebastian.
You are correct with the original plan. When that did not materialize why wasn’t the area returned to the original owners?
From the Internet:
Using the power of eminent domain, which permitted the government to purchase property from private individuals in order to construct projects for the public good, the city of Los Angeles bought up the land and leveled many of the existing buildings. By August 1952, Chavez Ravine was essentially a ghost town. The land titles would never be returned to the original owners, and in the following years the houses would be sold, auctioned and even set on fire, used as practice sites by the local fire department.
The plan for Los Angeles public housing soon moved to the forefront of a decade-long civic battle. The story of Chavez Ravine is intertwined with the social and political climate of the 1950s, or the “Red Scare” era. While supporters of the federal public housing plan for Chavez Ravine viewed it as an idealistic opportunity to provide improved services for poor Angelenos, opponents of the plan—including corporate business interests that wanted the land for their own use—employed the widespread anti-communist paranoia of the day to characterize such public housing projects as socialist plots. In 1952, Frank Wilkinson, the assistant director of the Los Angeles City Housing Authority and one of the main supporters behind Elysian Park Heights, faced questioning by the House Un-American Activities Committee. He was fired from his job and sentenced to one year in jail.
The Los Angeles City Council attempted to cancel the public housing contract with federal authorities, but courts ruled the contract legally binding. But by the time Norris Poulson was elected mayor in 1953, the project’s days were numbered. Poulson ran for office using the Chavez Ravine controversy as a platform, vowing to stop the housing project and other examples of “un-American” spending. After much negotiation, Poulson was able to buy the land taken from Chavez Ravine back from the federal government at a drastically reduced price, with the stipulation that the land be used for a public purpose.
Note: One (off-line) reader told me the former mayor ended up with a huge ranch that MAY have been a payback for his HANDLING of this huge parcel of land. I will leave it to others to investigate that if they so choose.
We’re not having the same discussion.
You’re saying these are important issues which should be discussed and reported upon.
We agree about that.
You’re also saying, however, that they should be discussed in every single discussion about urban redevelopment, without exception. I disagree. As Anon said, Howser’s shows are not the appropriate venue. To cover everything you think necessary would be to pull a bait & switch on his audience, to be taking advantage of the people who’ve come to trust him (& staff) to NOT be bringing up controversial subjects in the middle of what is a reporting of The Good Stuff. Not only would doing so be in bad taste (kind of like the family teenager giving the vegan lecture in the middle of Thanksgiving dinner), it would also be grotesquely exploitative.
Our argument is about audiences, the focus of various forms of media, about when it is or isn’t appropriate to change the focus and overall type of a show or message. You’re not providing argument for why Howser & Co. should abandon the well-established reputation, history, style and focus of their work (which is precious and rare, precisely because it is simultaneously intelligent and optimistic) and suddenly change to a more standard-issue style of investigative reporting. I’m willing to hear you out, but you’re just not making your case.
Kell.
In our discussion I told Huell that we truly enjoy his “non political” programs. Especially my wife who hears me covering politics nearly 24/7.
“Bait & switch.” That’s exactly what this is and he is falling for it!
That’s part of the problem. While this series will not be under the CA Gold banner it is still Huell Howser, a man whom we all look forward to his next,off the beaten path,visit to part of our state that is often overlooked. Sadly, while this series will take him to several different redevelopment projects, hand selected by the CRA
for effect, is below the bar. It might be different if these were areas he intended to visit on is own without any reference to the redevelopment aspect of their condition.
Personally, I wish he had not accepted this offer. He has been remarkably successful by his years of multiple KCET broadcast programs to date.
If Huell wants to be fair than he should have been receptive to my request for at least a one liner that you will not hear on this series.
“All redevelopment projects were not a success.”
How painful would that have been? The problem is that he is not footing the bill for this production. If I were with the CRA, I would not agree to that consideration. Hello folks. They have an AGENDA and are using Huell to promote it!
It reminds me of Bill O’Reilly explaining why Sean Hannity is so hard hitting on Democrats. He lets’ you know in advance that he is a conservative Republican. Just as is true for staunch Democrat Alan Colmes. You know what to expect when they speak. They each have an AGENDA
Make my case. We would not be having this discussion if Huell had stayed with he knows works instead of getting into a political issue when he told me he “is not political.”
Triangle Square in CM failed because of the crappy parking design. What a pain in the butt it is to park there.
Larry
As a Brooklyn fan, you will remember that Walter O’Malley lobbied Robert Moses in 1955/6 for a new stadium in Brooklyn. Moses didnt want to do the deal but in fact wanted O’Malley accept a stadium in an area where the 1964 Worlds Fair/USTA facility/Shea Stadium were held/built (and right on the subway line coming out of Manhattan into Queens).
O’Malley threatened to move the team and Moses thought he was joking-no one would move from New York. So O’Malley came out West and met with Hahn and Wyman (In fact MLB has a great film on the politics of the move from Brooklyn to Los Angeles). When the Dodgers made the move, they were situated in the Los Angeles Coliseum. What a lot of people dont know is that O’Malley got Horace Stoneham, his buddy and fellow New Yorker and owner of the New York Giants, to talk to San Francisco. LA politicos met with SF politicos: the net effect was that MLBaseball moved past the Mississippi for the first time.
When construction started on the stadium, entire neighborhoods were uprooted. All that one has to do is look at the LATimes articles of the day (remember the Chandlers were involved in this move) to discover the impact on East LA and The TV videos cogently illustrate the impact on Chavez Ravine residents who lived there. Dodger Stadium opened in 1962 (profiled in Life Magazine with such euphoria similiar to Baltimore’s new baseball stadium several years ago. The fact that the Dodgers won the World Series in 1959 added fuel to the 1960 political fire. They had to pull the stadium trigger and they did. The losers were the residents of Chavez Ravine. And we are talking residences, not housing projects, where people lived in 1959/1960/1961.
Poulson was long gone. The Housing Projects were long gone. But the neighborhoods were not. All one has to do is travel those surrounding areas close to the stadium. The Fire Training academy is still there. But the neighborhoods that constituted Chavez Ravine, populated by Latinos and Chinese, are long gone.
So, are you arguing for the complete elimination of the CRA? That means that the local governments, companies and individuals involved in urban planning, zoning and restoration would be working in greater isolation. In other words, they’d have no way of comparing notes, or ideas, or certainly no way to coordinate efforts or share successful strategies.
Or, are you saying construction projects should procede with no governmental or community imput at all? It should just be controlled by whomever has the most cash and happens to buy the right property at the right time?
“Doing Nothing” is rarely an option. Like the rest of the country, we’re facing an increasing population and a crumbling infrastructure. If you’re saying the members of the CRA and similar organizations sometimes screw up in managing repair, maintenance, restoration, new construction, and all the other variables, I’ll agree with you. If you say they screw up most of the time, I’d ask for proof, and a clarification on what your criteria for “success” are. If you’re saying they screw up ALL the time, that their mission is intrisically corrupt and evil, I disagree. Keeping cities and towns running while maintaining as much as possible of neighborhoods and legacy structures is by definition a thankless task — there’s always going to be somebody who isn’t happy, but that’s far more the fault of time, gravity, rust and entropy than any set of human individuals.
And, I don’t particularly disagree with their “agenda.” They’re setting out to educate the public about what redevelopment is, and how it works when it works well. Yes, in this case we’ll be looking at “best practices” instead of “failures.” As I’ve already said, both are crucial for understanding the processes involved. And, in this case, the failures have already had far more press than the successful projects. Along the way with this series, a whole lot of people who never thought about the issue will learn how they can get involved locally in the planning and evaluation process. And, later on, if they happen to hear about a specific scandal, controversy, or badly designed or managed project, they’ll have a context to put it in.
Sorry, but I just don’t see where you’re offering anything to replace the CRA, or even making any constructive suggestions for improvement. The management and staff involved in the controversies you’ve mentioned are probably all retired or dead by now, anyway. I’m not sure who exactly you’re mad at, or even what you want these people to do. If you want greater accountability, isn’t increased visibility a good thing? If you want more public involvement, well, here’s one way to foster it. It looks like you won’t be happy unless the Chiefs of every agency in the CRA put themselves in a stockade and recite “mea culpa” over and over for the rest of their careers. Personally, I’d rather have them working at their jobs.
I am disappointed that Huell is doing this series without the balance it requires and needs. In reality redevelopment the way it is employed in this state is Reverse Robin Hoodism–“steal from the poor and give to the rich.”
I would hope Huell reconsiders his decision on doing this series. He has spent a lifetime building his program and reputation–and now to lose it over a few “pieces of silver.”
Kell.
As this is the first time you have responded to any of my posts let me try to provide some background on this topic.
The root cause of the debate, which precedes any redevelopment, is the word “blight.”
For the past decade plus I have been a citizen lobbyist trying to level the playing field by promoting the suggestions of PPIC author Michael Dardia who offered the best criteria for every agency to follow in his book entitled “Subsidizing Redevelopment in CA.”
Sadly, ten years later, we still have failed to accept his sound ideas.
Rather than having every city redevelopment agency make the call as to what constitutes blight, we proposed establishing “metrics” where several factors would be considered before the blight designation could be used. In my Oct 2005 testimony before Sen. Christine Kehoe’s Joint Interim Hearing of five Senate and Assembly committees in San Diego I referenced Mr. Dardia and said that “blight conditions need to be aligned with the goal(s) of redevelopment and should be more precise. With the financial incentive of tax increment revenues, blight conditions cannot remain in the eye of the beholder if redevelopment efforts are meant to target the most serious cases of blight. This means they must be more like the quantitative criteria used to determine eligibility for enterprise zones in some states. Criteria such as poverty rate of at least 20% of the population, 20% population loss in recent years, X percentage of the buildings or assessed value abandoned, y percentage of property taxes in arrears, or the crime rate z times the state average. If the redevelopment subsidies are to be targeted, blight msut be judged more on an absolute than a relative basis.”
For months after that hearing I worked with Dem Sen. Kehoe’s staff lobbying Republicans to support SB 1206 while they worked the other side of the aisle on this non-partisan issue.
Sadly, her consultant informed me that both sides resisted the strong “metrics” approach contained in the original Bill and, in order to get any portion of it approved, it had to be gutted. Gov. Schwarzenegger sent me a letter indicating that he had reviewed the Bill and would be adding his signature.
Kell. There is a solution. Let’s establish consistent criteria for everone to follow.
I grew up in Newark NJ and attended Newark College of Engineering at night during the riots with NJ National Guardsman firing from rooftops. We saw abandoned, burned out cars, prostitution and drug dealers on street corners with abandoned
cars and some buildings everywhere. I would agree that this was “blight.”
Years later we move to Mission Viejo, CA who in 1992 won recognition as being the “finest planned community in America.” However, that was the same year our city ocuncil called a chunk of our city “blighted.” They established a redevelopment project area in a major section of our commercial zone along Crown Valley Parkway, from Interstate 5 to Marguerite Parkway.
When I discussed this “bogus” declaration with that former city manager he said “don’t fault us, change the law.”
PS: Over the past few years Mission Viejo has been recognized as the safest city in America of our size. Further, we have very little few business or home vacancies, a solid tax base, etc. yet we are still a “blighted” city?
“mea cupla”? No. Start out with a set of standard criteria before you even begin to have part time city council members, many with virtually zero zone planning experience, functioning as the local redevelopment agencies. These typically five citizens have been empowered to throw property owners under the bus when they do not wish to sell. You can still enforce existing Code Violation laws and legally advise property owners of addressing compliance to any Health and Safety concerns caused by their property use and maintenance thereof.
For years we have promoted citizen participation. Before creation of any future redevelopment project area place it on the Ballot and let us vote it up or down.
These are but a few of the suggestions we feel warrant consideration.
Larry Gilbert,Orange County Co-Director, Californians United for Redevelopment Education
Re. Legislating Standards
“This just in! East Coast suffers record earthquakes as the bodies of Jefferson and Madison roll in their graves!”
I mean, come on. There are far better ways to establish general evaluation criteria than making laws. For instance, write a book. Teach. Join the CRA and advocate for establishing engineering memoranda and other *flexible* protocols. Advocate changes to criteria that make projects or communities eligible for grants or other funding (My Guess is this is why your City Council was so eager to get a “blighted” section — it probably opened up funding possibilities.)But laws that specifically controlling planning & development? Too rigid. No matter how valuable as general, starting point criteria they might be, they would definitely not be specifically suitable for all circumstances.
And, this level of discussion is not suitable for the Howser shows. If approached from a technical standpoint, people would tune out due to boredom, and if from a political one, they’d tune out in exasperation.
Kell.
Legislating standards?
You mean to create a new law such as AB 97,the Bill signed by Gov Schwarzenegger on trans fats?
“California became the first state to require restaurants to cook without artery-clogging trans fats, such as those in many oils and margarines, under restrictions signed into law Friday by the health-conscious governor.
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, a physical-fitness advocate and crusader against obesity, sided with legislators who said the measure would help get the fat out of Californians who are too dependent on fast food.”
“The decision on what restaurants use in cooking should be based on the desires of customers, not government officials, said association spokesman Daniel Conway.”
It’s OK to become a “nanny state” but heaven forbid remove the power of local city council members as they function as their non elected redevelopment agency representatives with the power to declare your private property “blighted” solely to spruce up an area regardless of the present conditions or other circumstances?
So, as we fail to impose a set of standards a council majority in National City can remove a gym where minorites do their homework and work out for a revenue generating housing complex?
From a well known, successful redevelopment attorney who defends private parties in eminent domain actions:
“There are several redevelopment projects that flopped: Pasadena, Hawthorne, Redondo Beach, Fresno, Sacramento, and the never-ending-story in North Hollywood.
How official is the fact that Howser is being funded by the CRAs? Was anything published on this point?
Regarding the above question.
While I shall contact this person directly, to answer his question, I have two sources starting with Mr Howser himself who called me last night.
The other being the CRA newsletter promoting participation of any redevelopment agency in the state to submit additional redevelopment projects that Huell may visit.
As an investigative reporter I am very careful to be as accurate as possible when quoting other parties. Huell told me last week of his contract with the CRA.
Larry,
Did you happen to inquire of Mr. Howser, as a recent seller, the current price of a soul?
junior.
I take no pleasure in exposing Huell’s decision to be used by the CRA to promote redevelopment. Steve Greenhut also covered this issue last Sunday in his Register editiorial entitled:
“How could you Huell Howser?”
Junior.
As stated before my wife and I, along with thousands of other viewers, enjoy the CA Gold series where Huell travels to off the beaten path nooks and crannies in CA to give us a birds eye view of places we generally will not be aware of.
For that he is to be commended.
My disagreement with Huell is that these upcoming sites were NOT of his selection. The CRA has a request out now for redevelopment agencies to submit local projects for consideration in this 14 segment series.
Let me quote from their letter:
“To understand how your project exemplifies the value of redevelopment, there are a few questions to answer as follows:
1)How did the project contribute to reversal of the community’s decay?
2)What part did the project play in the revitalization of the community?
3)How has the community changed and benefited because of the project?”
Perhaps we could interview some of those property owners who were displaced to make way for these projects.
To repeat our position on redevelopment.
One. We do not oppose any activity relating to a valid public use such as the need to widen a road, build a post office, or school.
Two. Obviously we have no issue if you have a willing buyer and a willing seller in the transaction.
Three. If a building, or home, presents a Health and Safety concern that the property owner fails to address, such as use as a “crack house,” there is no question that we support appropriate corrective action.
As stated by a legal expert we can suggest several southern CA cities with projects that were failures. The CRA will not permit Huell to go there. They are PAYING his company. That’s the problem.
This series is targeted to appear on KCET public access TV yet, based on my reques tto Huell, will not offer any consideration for an opposing argument.
Sadly, Huell is being used by the CRA.
From an Aug 2001 story about Huellfound on the Net.
“Mr. Howser grew up in Gallatin, Tenn., 30 miles from Nashville. He spent most of the 1970’s as the feature reporter for WSM-TV, the NBC affiliate in Nashville. Then one day he did a segment about the proposed demolition of the old Tennessee governor’s mansion to make way for a Popeye’s chicken franchise, and compared America’s treatment of its old buildings to its treatment of old people.
The station suspended him for 30 days for editorializing.”
Huell. Please treat CA victims with the same courage and compassion you showed back in TN.
lighten up! Huell Howser is awesome
Huell’s video’s will live on as “California’s Gold” long after we are all gone from the scene. It will allow our great grandchildren and others, to see California history “as it was, and who and how it came to be”. It cannot be politicalized, no matter who pays to have it recorded for posterity. Huell will go down in California history books as a great explorer as is Lewis and Clark. He is California’s history Recorder.
Diane.
I wrote this post 18 months ago. My point being that every Juice reader can still find our posts on our Internet site and add comments.
There is no question that Huell Howser has provided an educational and entertaining tour of our state that most of us would not have seen. My wife and I both enjoy his programs.
However, he sold out to the California Redevelopment Agency to promote one side of the debate for money.
In our telephone discussion he told me that “he is not political ” yet allowed himself to be used to promote redevelopment and eminent domain in CA.
Do you ever watch the LA Dodgers on TV or attend one of their home games?
Do you know that Mexican-Americans were displaced from their Chavez Ravine village homes which eventually became that famous LA stadium built by Walter O’Malley?
So while some may benefit from that project its a zero sum gain.
This tale is reported across this country.
When I asked Huell to make a simple statement that “not all redevelopment projects are successful” he said he could not as they were paying him.I rest my case.
Larry,
I am 73 years old. I was born in Long Beach Ca., and was raised in nearby Wilmington, Ca. My father was a Capt. on the Compton police force. He and my mother retired in 77″ and moved to Mojave. By then, redevelopment had come to our little town, and wiped out homes that belonged to, I am sure, some of my old friends that I or my siblings, [6], grew up with, went trick or treating with, walked to school with, from 1943 to 1956, when I married and moved away.
They built a school there as many had moved into our little town, and our schools were no longer enough for the town.
Our town is known for the founder, Phineas Banning, the name of my high school. The terrible fact that they removed old people from their homes to build a school for the new kids coming to our town just didn’t seem right. BUT, having said this, I still wish Huell would go to my little town and film for posterity, the old Banning Mansion. I remember the old carriages in the barn. And the times we played on the green grass there. Or maybe Juanita’s Mexican taco sauce would be a nice show for Huell to visit. Now, I am in my declining years. The threat of losing my home is as real now as it was to Chavaz Revine. I have seen redevelopers, [Anaheim, Ca.], threaten our area with redevelopment, [eminent domain], and not to mention Howard Jarvis Prop. 13 being threatened by big wigs that think 43 years of paying my taxes on my little humble home is not enough for today’s high cost to live here anymore. Some, I am sure, have sold their homes and moved away because they could not afford the incredible high taxes on a home they thought would do until death do us part.
But I would still like to see Huell come to my little piece of the world, and film his stories here.
Well, of course Disneyland and Angel stadium, and the Glass Cathedral and the Convention center is here. But that’s another story of eminent domain that’s still going on.
I think Huell smells bad
I think you do too
Some one. Knock it off. This was a serious post.
What value should our readers derive from your comment?
Come on guys, the truth is Huell smells good, he smells fine. “Someone” has never smelt him. Either that or “someone” is smelling his or her OWN stench whenever he or she gets near Huell.
Someone Else.
This story is about redevelopment, not Old Spice deodorant.
While we disagreed on this one issue we lost a giant of a man today. Heull Howeser will surely be missed.