Residents Fear Effect of Blight Label

For the past five months, city officials hoping to capture $260 million for infrastructure repair by declaring virtually the entire city a redevelopment zone have held fast to the idea that blight is good. But some Westminster residents aren’t so sure.

With a final council vote on what the city is calling a revitalization plan expected Wednesday, some residents still are afraid the legal definition under state redevelopment law will somehow hurt their property value.

The plan, given initial approval on a 5-0 vote of the City Council June 28, would designate most of the city’s 10.2 square miles as a “blighted” area. The city would then be able to declare it a redevelopment project area. The move would allow the city to tap into any increase in property tax revenue for the next 30 years to pay for repairs to its aging roads and sewers.

An impromptu town hall meeting last Thursday, held to present the city’s proposal once again and air last-minute opposition by residents, did little to calm the concerns of the more than 30 residents who attended.

“Why was my house designated unfit and unsafe to live in?” resident Alison Lightner asked.

Lightner lives on Tillamook Avenue in a neighborhood of well-kept homes built in the late ‘50s. She was referring to a list of 7,543 structures the city labeled as having “physical issues” and are defined in California redevelopment law as “buildings in which it is unsafe or unhealthy for persons to live or work.”

Tillamook Avenue residents have been told by city officials that one reason for the designation is that a drainage canal behind the homes is inadequate. Recently, Community Advisory Group member and Tillamook Avenue resident Vivian Kirpatrick-Pilger called county officials to question the canal’s status. She was told it had no recorded problems.

At last week’s meeting, a lawyer hired by the city for redevelopment council, reiterated the city’s stand when responding to Lightner’s concern.

“[The designation] doesn’t mean you can’t live in it,” Stephen P. Deitsch said. “Under redevelopment law, it’s a different definition. It’s just for the purposes of adopting the plan.”

Still, some residents are unsettled at having their property title state that their home is in a redevelopment zone.

“Let’s face it, would you buy a home in a redevelopment zone?” Kirpatrick-Pilger asked. “I understand the city needs money, but I’m not sure we need to do it this way.”

She said she does not know what action residents opposed to the plan might take during the council meeting Wednesday. “I feel like a deer caught in the headlights,” she said.

On Friday, Mayor Frank Fry Jr. said he will reopen public hearings on the proposal at the meeting before the scheduled vote.

Alex Murashko can be reached at (714) 966-5974.