Redevelopment road now clear

After a long, often bitter and divisive process, the Costa Mesa City

Council last week put a firm end to plans for wholesale redevelopment

of the Westside.

The council, acting as the city’s Redevelopment Agency, voted 3 to

1 to halt plans to expand the area by 440 acres. Councilman Chris

Steel was the lone dissenting vote and Councilman Allan Mansoor had

to abstain because he owns property too close to the area under

consideration.

The vote ended years of debate about how to spruce up a part of

the city that nearly everyone agrees needs help. It was just a matter

of what form that help should take: either an expansion of the

redevelopment area -- which would freeze property taxes at the

current rate and redirect 70% of future tax increases to the agency

to be reinvested in the community and could have involved the use

eminent domain -- or less dramatic city work and more reliance on the

businesses that exist there.

The council was correct in going with the less aggressive route

for a number of reasons. The largest is that no significant,

coordinated, business-led revitalization has been tried, and it needs

to be the first step. Getting those with a stake in the area to

commit resources and time to cleaning up trashed lots and removing

dilapidated buildings is the best, most cost effective and

collaborative solution. An ancillary reason is that, having not tried

this route, it would be unfair to property owners to take a far more

dramatic step.

Residents who wanted the redevelopment area expanded, no doubt,

will be skeptical that the easier road will lead to their goal. They

have two choices: They can either continue to fight for a dead cause

and expend their energy fruitlessly or they can accept the decision

and work to ensure progress is being made.

They should do the latter. They should not let business and

property owners do little or nothing. They should watch what is being

done and speak up if they think not enough is happening. But every

time they speak, it cannot be to say that redevelopment is the only

way to go.

The debate about redevelopment has made it clear that the status

quo is not acceptable. Having “won” the fight, business and property

owners now have the burden of proving that they can clean the area

up, as they have promised. If they can’t or if they fail, it may turn

out that a firmer city hand, in the form of redevelopment, is needed.

If that time comes, residents will be best served by not having cried

wolf over and over so their most serious protestations will be heard.