‘Gadfly’ Gets Unusual Reward--a Victory

When voters in the small South Bay city of Lawndale read down to the local section of their Nov. 5 ballot, they can thank -- or blame -- Fred Siegel for what they see. And for what they don’t see.

That’s because Siegel, after three years of regular railing against what he considers municipal injustice, went to court over a ballot proposal designed to give the city’s redevelopment agency broader powers.

And he won.

Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge David Yaffe last month agreed with Siegel and his attorney that the wording on Measure N was misleading and improperly stacked the deck in favor of a “yes” vote.

Yaffe in essence rewrote the measure. His wording explains that Measure N would repeal the city’s prohibition on eminent domain, which is the government’s taking of private property, with compensation, for a public purpose. He also wiped out a wordy phrase spelling out all the good things Measure N purportedly would do.

The court victory bestowed on Siegel a degree of success uncommon among his fellow “gadflies,” those self-appointed government watchdogs who keep sharp eyes on their city councils and other officials.

Their dedication in scrutinizing agendas and speaking out at public meetings sometimes borders on obsession, and they can become quite passionate -- some would say shrill -- when it’s their turn at the microphone.

“They get me all worked up,” said Siegel of his many beefs with the officials on the dais. He has lost track of the number of times he has been escorted from the council chamber by the sheriff’s deputy posted to keep order at the meetings.

He records all his appearances and listens to the tapes to see how he might have improved his delivery -- or to catch City Atty. William Wynder, “the bureaucrats” or council members in missteps.

Across California, officials often dismiss the watchdogs’ many complaints as ill-founded or trivial, a sort of civic form of crying wolf. But occasionally someone is “right and determined enough to get results through the courts,” says Terry Francke. Francke is general counsel for the California First Amendment Coalition, a nonprofit in Sacramento that promotes open government.

“It’s unusual for someone to follow through and even rarer to win,” added Francke, whose organization helps those, including Siegel, having difficulty participating in their governments.

“This gives me more legitimacy,” Siegel said of his win. “The city is always trying to cut me down. They say I’m out of order when I try to talk about this at council meetings. This time, they couldn’t muzzle me.”

Lawndale officials, however, say Siegel has done a disservice to voters by getting the court to strip away the “context” and explanation of how eminent domain could be used to help spur commerce and bring in more jobs and tax dollars. The city also has criticized his behavior.

‘Uniformly Critical’

In a court document filed in connection with Siegel’s suit, Wynder said Siegel turns up at virtually every council and redevelopment agency meeting and is “uniformly critical” every time he reaches the lectern.

“He objects to, rails against and criticizes the council collectively, and individually,” Wynder said. In addition, the attorney continued, Siegel has been involved in several other court matters with the city and is “philosophically opposed” to eminent domain.

Plus, Wynder informed the court, Siegel ran for mayor last April and “received the second fewest votes of all candidates.” (That was three: Mayor Harold Hofmann got 1,061 votes, Siegel, 298, and Enrique Salazar, 43.)

Siegel, a slightly built man of 57 who rides his bicycle the few blocks to City Hall from the rustic cottage that serves as his home and the office for his real estate and income tax business, acknowledges that he has battled the city on several fronts -- and that he believes the use of eminent domain is never justified.

He added that it didn’t help his attitude when officials included his home, and the rental property he owns next door, in the redevelopment project area. (They are trying to lure a BMW dealer and other lucrative businesses to town and say they need the property condemnation powers to assemble enough land for maximal success.)

Several years ago, voters turned down civic leaders’ desire to form a state-authorized community redevelopment agency, but proponents later sold the idea by promising that the agency (whose board members are the City Council) would be forbidden from using eminent domain. (Wynder has said that the prohibition is likely illegal as state law overrides city measures that conflict with it.)

Siegel believes the city’s recent criminal prosecution of him for refusing to trim the overgrown hedges (which he insists are trees) at the front of his property was in retaliation for his activism.

“I’m the only one they ever cited like this,” he grumbled, producing a letter from the city that confirmed he was the sole person to be criminally prosecuted for a hedge violation. However, the letter added that criminal charges were about to be filed against a second property owner for the same thing.

Siegel wound up with a $270 penalty after going back and forth with his attorney, the prosecutor and the city, agreeing to settle by making the required trims to his beloved yuccas and then changing his mind.

Even Siegel’s defense attorney, Richard F.G. Thomas, expressed frustration in a letter to his client.

“I strongly cautioned you that it would be better if you let me do all the talking, but you told me that you wanted your ‘day in court,’ ” Thomas wrote.

Civic Pride

Siegel is part of a small, second-generation group of civic watchdogs (his role model died last year) in Lawndale, a blue-collar town of nearly 32,000 residents that proudly bills itself as the “Heart of the South Bay.”

The population is 52% Latino, 21% white, 12% black and 10% Asian or Pacific Islander. Lawndale’s neighborhoods of modest bungalows and apartment buildings are bisected by busy Hawthorne Boulevard, and residents can easily reach their immaculate Civic Center.

The nearly two-square-mile community incorporated in 1959 to avoid being swallowed up by neighboring Hawthorne or Redondo Beach. From its beginnings, many active town residents have displayed not only a strong civic identity and pride but also a deep suspicion of big government.

But Siegel is hardly content with his victory.

Noting that the city has authorized a $35,000 “voter education” campaign for Measure N, he recently stepped up his efforts to defeat it.

Siegel was hosting meetings in the large backyard he shares with a family of half-feral cats until a sympathetic businessman offered the use of his restaurant. Siegel and his small band of comrades write fliers, post signs, plot strategy.

He says he has pretty much neglected his business in favor of campaigning against Measure N, but expresses no regrets. Win or lose, he’ll be back at City Hall after the vote, ready for the next battle.

*

(BEGIN TEXT OF INFOBOX / INFOGRAPHIC)

New Wording on Nov. 5 Ballot

Lawndale activist Fred Siegel won a court battle when a judge said the city’s wording of Measure N was misleading.

Original:

To provide the ability to create local jobs; attract business; generate revenue to repair streets, potholes; expand anti-drug and gang programs; improve parks, libraries, senior services without increasing taxes; shall the City Council be directed to amend the General Plan and shall Ordinance No. 920-02 be adopted repealing the municipal code chapter 2.74 to allow use of eminent domain to eliminate blight in commercial and industrial (not residential) zones only within the redevelopment project area?

Current:

(1) Shall Ordinance No. 920-02 be adopted to do the following: repeal in its entirety Chapter 2.74 of the Lawndale Municipal Code, which prohibits the redevelopment agency from using its power of eminent domain to acquire property which is zoned for residential purposes or developed with residential structures of 4 units or less? And (2) Shall the City Council be directed to amend the General Plan to permit the use of eminent domain to eliminate blight only in commercial and industrial, but not residential zones, within the redevelopment project area?