Renewal Issue to Go on Bellflower Ballot

BELLFLOWER —  The City Council took the politically sensitive step this week of deciding to submit the issue of redevelopment to the public, which has overwhelmingly rejected it in the past.

In a long but surprisingly low-key meeting, the council approved a November ballot measure asking residents to repeal a 5-year-old law that prevents the council from creating a redevelopment agency without voter approval. The council voted 4 to 1 for the measure.

Residents approved the 1983 ban by a wide margin after redevelopment opponents expressed concern that the proposed agency would have the power to condemn homes for redevelopment.

Added Provision

The council, apparently responding to those concerns, added a provision that would prohibit a redevelopment agency from condemning residential property through eminent domain. The agency’s condemnation powers would be restricted to commercial property.

Few residents opposed redevelopment during a two-hour public hearing in the William Bristol Civic Auditorium. The council meeting was moved from council chambers to the auditorium to accommodate the nearly 200 people who attended.

A majority said they favored an agency that would help bolster the city’s economy and improve the aging downtown area along Bellflower Boulevard.

City officials said residents may be recognizing that neighboring cities are in better financial shape than Bellflower. Cerritos, for example, has a 17-dealer auto mall and a $59-million redevelopment budget. And Lakewood last year collected $7.2 million in sales tax revenue, largely from the Lakewood Center and the recently renovated Dutch Village Shopping Center. Bellflower collected $3.7 million in sales tax revenue last year, and has recently been informed that two of the city’s five new-car dealers will move to Cerritos within a year.

Bellflower is one of three Southeast cities that does not have a redevelopment agency. The others are Artesia and La Habra Heights.

Resident Scott Larsen told the council he once opposed redevelopment, but now favors the ballot measure. “If we’re going to move into the 21st Century, we’re going to need some change,” he said.

Larsen was one of 17 people who said they favored the ballot measure.

“At one time, I was against redevelopment,” said resident Perry Mansell. “I would like to see (the City Council) take some initiative and take it to the people.”

Echoed Past Arguments

Nine people, including three from Bell Gardens, echoed the past arguments that redevelopment threatens residents’ properties and will not significantly increase tax revenues.

“The more you try to bring redevelopment to this city, the madder we will get,” said resident Dale Gilson. “We didn’t vote (redevelopment) down by 40 votes. We killed it.”

Councilman John Ansdell, who strongly opposed redevelopment in the past, joined council members William D. Pendleton, Kenneth J. Cleveland and Randy Bomgaars in approving the ballot measure.

Councilman Joseph E. Cvetko cast the only dissenting vote, saying that the city staff was rushing to put the measure on the ballot without properly studying the cost of starting a redevelopment agency.

“It’s too early, too soon to put this to a ballot vote,” Cvetko said.

Ansdell, who later said he opposed redevelopment in principle, voted for the measure because “the people of Bellflower are intelligent enough to make an informed choice.”

Ansdell said he was “generally satisfied” by the provision that would prevent the agency from condemning residential property for redevelopment projects. Ansdell, a Bellflower Boulevard business owner, said he was surprised that more people did not speak against redevelopment.

“It wasn’t like before. Nobody seemed to care,” he added.

Friday Deadline

The measure must be submitted to the state by Friday to be placed on the November ballot.

A redevelopment agency would manage commercial and public improvements in a corridor along Artesia Boulevard between Woodruff and Downey avenues, a corridor along Bellflower Boulevard between Artesia Boulevard and Compton Boulevard, and a corridor along Lakewood Boulevard between Artesia Boulevard and Rosecrans Avenue.

About 30 residential properties would be included in the proposed redevelopment area.

In previous years, redevelopment has divided residents and city officials, with council meetings erupting into shouting matches and pro-redevelopment council members losing their seats.

In April, former Mayor Maurice G. Brassard lost his council race after suggesting an April ballot measure similar to the measure that the council approved this week. The council rejected Brassard’s proposal.

In 1983, former Councilman James Earl Christo led a strong anti-redevelopment drive that ended with residents voting by a 4-1 ratio to ban the City Council from creating a redevelopment agency on its own.

Vow to Fight

Christo this week vowed to renew his anti-redevelopment fight.

“I’m going to do my best to keep eminent domain out of the city, either residential or commercial,” he told the council at the public hearing.

A series of meetings is being planned to explain the latest redevelopment proposal. On Aug. 22, city officials will offer a study session on the results of a $50,000 study of the city’s financial condition by Williams-Kuebelbeck & Associates., a management consultant firm.

The 225-page study, which was released just before the council meeting, included a recommendation to create a redevelopment agency to help draw new business to the city and retain the three remaining new car dealers.