Opponents Say Big Money Is Behind Katella Renewal Plan

Bud Bassett, a 71-year-old retired engineer, takes pride in his home and neighborhood. And on Sunday, he told hundreds of his neighbors that he doesn’t want to lose it, no matter how much it may be worth to developers who want it.

Bassett and his wife, Vivian, built their 2,200-square-foot home on Kimberly Place in Anaheim more than 33 years ago. Katella Avenue, two blocks to the south, then was an “oil road,” he said, and Disneyland, to the east, was an orange grove. The neighborhood of custom-built homes has history and roots, Bassett said.

So it was with a growing sense of anger that Bassett read of his neighborhood as crime-ridden and dilapidated and of his neighbors as homeless or drug users, descriptions included in a report on the proposed Katella Redevelopment Project.

The report was a profile of the entire 4,400-acre project area, but Bassett was incensed that his neighborhood was included.

At a rally Sunday afternoon at Willow Park, Bassett told his neighbors that someone is out to make big money at their expense. He said that if Anaheim Stadium and Disneyland are excluded, the area targeted for redevelopment would affect 12,599 homes covering 3,700 acres.

He estimated that at a “low average” of $150,000 per home, the total value would be about $1.9 billion. Still, Bassett said, the 3,700 acres could be worth as much as $5.5 billion to developers if the land were sold for anywhere from $1 million to $3 million an acre.

“Who’s going to share in all that profit?” he demanded. “This is mind-boggling. Our homes are worth almost $2 billion and that makes us big enough to be a corporation.”

At Sunday’s rally, elderly residents, young homeowners and children--about 400 of them--gathered under eucalyptus trees to hear neighborhood leaders update their fight against City Hall to protect their middle-class, well-kept neighborhoods.

Many carried placards proclaiming: “Homes Before Tourism,” “Andy Anaheim vs. Citizens” and “Andy Anaheim Wants Your Home!”

“This is serious. We really need to fight this plan,” said Ron Coni, who has lived in the 1200 block of Walnut Street for more than two decades.

Residents, many of whom learned of the project three weeks ago during a stormy City Council meeting, have begun organizing to prevent its completion and already have forced changes in its boundaries. But the matter isn’t settled. Many residents complain that they received short notice about public hearings on the project and that the city has made no promises they can count on.

There is also a sense that they are battling hidden opponents: the might of Disneyland and other large businesses in the project area who stand to benefit from redevelopment, and who, in residents’ minds, wield tremendous clout in city government.

Last week, Bassett described a presentation of the project by city staff members at the July 7 Anaheim City Council meeting.

“During the introduction of the project, right away they started naming those who were in favor of it--the Wrather Corp. (owner of the Disneyland Hotel), the Hilton Hotel--and immediately everybody got up in arms. Many people see this project as a long-term way to clear out a corridor for Disney to have the world’s largest recreation area.”

Blighted Designation

Homeowners also question the accuracy of the project report, prepared by the firm of KatzHollis, which offers a justification for designating the area as blighted, a designation necessary for redevelopment.

Many residents say the city may be misapplying redevelopment laws, and they say that they are prepared to mount a legal battle to stop it.

“The real issue is what constitutes blight, and can they come in and take our property on that basis,” said Doug Kintz, president of Home Owners for Maintaining Their Environment, the primary group campaigning against the plan. “We don’t think we have won any victories yet, and, in fact, the entire project still poses a threat.”

The boundaries of the project originally included Santa Ana Street and Ball Avenue on the northwest and north, the city limits on the south and 9th Street on the west.

Anaheim Stadium, Disneyland and the Anaheim Convention Center lie within the area, which has a population of 32,000 and nearly 13,000 residences.

If approved, the project would cost nearly $3 billion and would be completed by the year 2022, officials estimate.

Redevelopment Goals

The redevelopment plan’s stated main objective is the “elimination and prevention of the spread of blight and deterioration . . . and the elimination of environmental deficiencies, including substandard vehicular circulation.”

Proposed public improvements include construction or widening of freeways, streets and alleys, improvements of storm drains and sewers and construction of new neighborhood parks in the Citron section, north of the tourism area.

The environmental impact report says the plan will more than double traffic in the area and cause open-space deficiencies. The report predicts that under the worst circumstances, 7,000 people would be displaced if some residential property in the area were converted to other uses, as permitted by the city’s general plan.

Bassett and his neighbors were displeased about several characterizations of the project area in the report, including the following:

- The grounds of many properties in the area are poorly maintained and littered with trash, brush and debris.

- Many of the buildings, particularly residential structures, are defective by modern building code standards.

- Infectious diseases occur at a higher rate inside the Project Area than in Anaheim’s citywide population, according to the county Health Care Agency.

- The project area is a dangerous place. Felony crimes of personal assault, crimes against property and narcotics offenses are common.

‘Gross Inaccuracies’

“My main objections are to the gross inaccuracies in the report,” said Bassett, who estimates that his home is worth more than $250,000. “It amounts to character assassination. I think most of the protesters are not anti-redevelopment per se, but with this plan there are no priorities set and no justification for anything.”

Norman J. Priest, Anaheim’s community development and planning director, said that residents have mistaken the project’s intent. Redevelopment would benefit everyone in the area, he declared.

Nevertheless, Priest has recommended that a major portion of residential neighborhoods be removed from the project because of the outcry. “Owners have made a clear choice that they don’t want to be a part of the program, and we are accommodating them,” he noted.

Priest said many of the neighborhoods were included, not because they were blighted but because of the way most redevelopment projects are funded. The primary source of revenue to repay costs will come from the increase in tax assessments resulting from new construction and improvements, he said. The bigger the project area, the more dollars generated, he pointed out.

But homeowners say the uncertainty of their status during a 35-year project is too high a price to pay, and most are not satisfied with the revisions.

“It amounts to a 35-year granting of power to whomever is on the (redevelopment) agency,” said Betty Ronconi, who has owned a home on South Walnut Street in the project area for 30 years. “They say, ‘We’re not going to do this or that to you,’ but what we are reading in the documents is that they have every right to do what they want once the plan is approved.”

Ronconi said many residents believe the city wants in the long run to be able to acquire their property to sell to private industry.

Disneyland Influence

One homeowner, who asked that his name not be used, said many feel Disneyland and big hotel interests will be able to influence the City Council, which must decide whether the project will proceed.

“There is talk that Disneyland has let the area around it get out of hand to force redevelopment and also talk that Disney wants to buy the Jeffrey-Lynne area (an area of apartments west of Disneyland),” the anonymous homeowner said.

Disneyland previously has announced tentative plans to expand, but on property that it already owns.

Bob Roth, Disneyland’s director of publicity, said his company supports redevelopment plans but denied there was a hidden agenda to acquire additional property.

“There is nothing that we are locked into right now in terms of expansion,” Roth said. “We feel the area needs to get ready for the 21st Century, and that now is the time to start doing it. Tourism is extremely important to this area, and the community must work to maintain a level of quality.”

Published minutes of the July 7 City Council meeting include several inquiries by residents about Disneyland’s intent.

Priest said that while businesses in the area, including Disneyland, have been concerned for some time with alleviating traffic and other problems, there has been no undue influence from them on the Katella project.

Paul Bostwick, chairman of the Project Area Committee, a 16-member group established to advise the city on the redevelopment plan, agreed. “The committee did not feel this was a struggle by a group of small neighborhoods posed against the might of big business,” he added.

The committee, made up of business and property owners, tenants and other groups in the area, has endorsed the Katella plan.

Bostwick argues that if the Katella redevelopment is postponed 30 or 40 years, structures may have to be torn down rather than rehabilitated or remodeled as is now planned.

‘The Same Concerns’

He says residents have panicked unnecessarily.

“We on the committee came from the same place they came from and expressed the same concerns,” Bostwick said. “I just wish people had gotten involved at an earlier stage because there would have been much more support for this.”

Ultimately, the battle may be decided in court.

Priest said the commission responded to neighborhood challenges by revising boundaries. But he declined to comment further on the legal aspects of the plan.

Several groups around the state have successfully fought redevelopment projects in their area.

In a recent case, the 1st Appellate District of the California Court of Appeal overturned a redevelopment plan in Solano County.

The court found that “before a project area can be selected for redevelopment under the Community Redevelopment Law, it must be blighted. . . . The area must constitute a ‘serious physical, social or economic burden on the community which cannot reasonably be expected to be reversed or alleviated by private enterprise acting alone’ . . . and to qualify as a subject of redevelopment, the area must be blighted when considered as a whole.”

Asks for Proof

“Let them prove where the blighted areas are,” said Kintz of the homeowners group.

Kintz and his family own a home on Norma Lane, an area of well-kept, landscaped homes with wood and stone facades. “If there are areas that private business cannot redeem, then let redevelopment work the way it was intended. We want to work together on this, but from square one.”

The city has scheduled a series of informational meetings at local high schools to explain details of the plan, but many residents in the project area say they will never again feel secure about their property, whether the plan goes forward or not.

“It creates a whole different outlook on your home and what plans you have for it,” said Kintz’s wife, Teri.

“It’s very discouraging. Knowing what we know now, do you just hope and pray they don’t approach you and live your life, or do you think about relocating?”