Resolution No. 4382
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
RESOLUTION NO. 4382
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VERNON SUPPORTING
THE ADOPTION OF SENATE BILL 1291
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VERNON RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
WHEREAS, Senate Bill 1291 has been endorsed before the Cali-
fornia State Legislature urging that any ordinances adopted after
July 1, 1975 adopting a redevelopment plan for an area having
property valuations of more than One Billion ($1,000,000,000.00)
Dollars be subject to a referendum; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Vernon believes that
the electorate should have control, by way of a referendum
measure or otherwise, over matters of such magnitude as will
affect the taxes assessed against said electorate;
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
SECTION 1: The City Council of the City of Vernon urges the
adoption of Senate Bill 1291 by the California State Legislature.
SECTION 2: The City Council of the City of Vernon does not
feel that Senate Bill 1291 goes as far as is needed and urges that
the matter set forth in the STATEMENT OF SUPPORT BY CENTRAL BASIN
20 MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT be considered for amendments by both the
21
State Assembly and the State Legislature, including (1) the elec-
22
tion to be made by the voters of an entire county, (2) the exten-
23
24
25
sion of Senate Bill 1291 to projects of less than One Billion
($1.000,000,000.00) Dollars, and (3) the costs of any referendum
election to be borne entirely by a special tax on the proposed
26
proj ect area.
27
SECTION 3: That Senate Bill 1291 be further broadened to
28
include more protection so that agencies such as the non-initiating
29
cities, counties, water districts, school districts and other
30
31
32
special districts will not find their tax bases eroded by forces
beyond their control.
-1-
"'" ( '. ~,.
1 SECTION 4: That the City Clerk of the City of Vernon shall
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
certify to the passage of this Resolution and thereupon and
thereafter the same shall be in full force and effect.
ADOPTED AND APPROVED this 20th day of January, 1976.
~,)
. \LEONrti'~r'
~
F~. Z~~, City Clerk
-2-
"III ~, ".
6
71
8
9
I
10 :
11
12
13 I
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
1 STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
) ss.
2 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES )
3\
4 I, F. A. ZIEMER, City Clerk of the City of Vernon, do
5 hereby certify that the foregoing resolution, being Resolution
No.
4382 , was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of
Vernon, and approved by the Mayor of said City, at a regular
meeting of the City Council held on
January 20, 1976
~.
City Clerk
. i
.
This is the material which should
have been enclosed with my letter
of February 2, 1976 relative to
SB 1291.
Regret the oversight.
Tax Funds Would
Be Squandered
10- 1:1.-1 S'
BY ERNANI BERNA.RDI
The Central City redevelopment projl'Ct re-
cently approved by the mayor and City Coun-
cil is a multi-billion dollar tax subSidy to be
paid by all taxpayers in the county'ror the
benefit of a few major property owners m the
downtown area.
The projl'Ct area encompa.ses some 1.r.OO
acres-255 blocks including some eye.orea
but also a considerable amount of Ihe newesl,
highest.priced buildings in California.
Almost all the downtown area bounded bv
the Hollywood. Harbor, and Sanla Momra
Enulni Bernardi is a tAlS Angdes cillJ toun-
t:ilman who represcnts the Van NUlJ.,.Panora-
ma Cityarca of the Son FerMndo rOUM).
freeways and Alameda Street is included in
the project.
Under California's tax increment program
for financing redevelopment proteCIS. I he as-
sessed value of all properly in Ihis area has
been frozen at its present level. .
That doesn't mean the assessed value of
downlown property Will not increase. It will.
What it means is that the laxes from any m-
creased assessments in this enlirc downtown
area for Ihe next 35 years will not go 10 Ihe
.city. Ihe counly, Ihe schools or any other
public agency.
The money will go to the Community Rc.
development Agency to finance the down.
town redevelopment plan.
The tax loss to county and municipal agen-
cies and Ihe schools will have to be made up
by additional or increased taxes Imposed on
all property taxpayers in the counly.
County Assessor Philip E. Wato:on estimates
that will require a 10% tax increase-$IOO to
5200 a year for the typical homeowner-to
subsidize the "rebuilding" of downtown.
WaL'lOn has figures to show that from 1965
to 1975 property in the projeCt area increased
in assessed valuation by 74.02%-an average
of 7.4% a year.
My office, usmg a 6% inflationary growth
factor figured over the 35-year hfe of the
project. and a fixed $14 tax rate, has arrived
at a cost to taxpayers of $4.6 billion.
The county auditor-controller confirms that
figure. And it does not include taxes that will
be generated from new construction or any
increase in the tax rate.
The tax rate has Increased to $14.22 this
year, and the Ceptral CIty projeCt will guar-
antee that the tax rate will continue to in-
crease substantially during the life of this plan.
Don't be misled by claims of proponents
that this is the only way Skid Rowand other
blighted areas can be corrected and decent
housing provided for low and moderate in-
come people.
In 1957. as a member of the Citizens Urban
Renewal Advisory Committee. I voted to rec.
ommend to Ihe City Council that Bunker Hill
be declared an urban renewal project.
The arllUment advanced for that project by
its proponents, then as now. was thaI it would
get rid of urban blight and provide safe anr!
sanitary housing for the low income families
residing in the area.
lf the rest of downtown is to be rebuilt as .
Bunker Hill is being "rebuilt." pious promises
notwithstanding. it is inconceivable to me
that taxpayers throughout the county should
be ...ddled with it It means a $4,6 billion tax
burden to build more lavish Union Bank
buildings. plush World Trade Cenlers and .
high.rent Bunker H,ll Towers apartments.
This is why I've filed two lawsuits seeking
to invalidale the project I've been JOined in
these lawsuiLq by Assessor Watson, who
agrees With me that tax increment linancing
on this hUlle scale IS simply a gigantic lax rip-
off to bell"fit a few.
In order to qualify for tax rfolbl'!l to subsl.
dlze thIS project. the entire downtown area
was declared a "bhghted" area. This includl!ll
sllch st ruclures as Arco Towers. the Broad-
way Plaza complex and its Hyatt Regency
1I0tcl. lImted California Bank's new skyscra-
per and the Times.Mirror building complex-
all ph"h del'elopmenLq located on some of the
most valuahle land in California.
If Ihis massh'e area can be declared blight-
ed. every section in the city and county can
be so claSSifIed.
A prnpose'l red,'veloJlmen' ",,0jl'C1 on Ceta-
hna Island ilIust.rales how ruliculous BUcll
bhght desil(Tlations can be. It would declare
the entire City of Avalon and three miles out
to sea as a bhghted area.
The City of Burbank has declared the
KNBC complex, SL Joseph's Hospital and the
Burbank motion picture studios as blighted.
It is this kind of misuse of the "blight" des.
il{nation. in order to take advantage of tax in.
crement financing, that has rellulted in the
proliferation of redevelopment projects
throughout the county. It must be stopped.
There are presently 108 projects in the
county. In 1974-75, 46 of these projects si-
phoned off 531.6 million in tax money that
had lo be made up by other. taxpayers.
Thirty-nine of these has laken $72 million
in tax money from 1969-70 through 1974-75.
Tax increment financing is really a subter.
fur;:e to divert public money for the benefit of
pmate developers. and this is what the
. downtown redevelopment project is all about.
As noted in a recent article in Coast Maga-
zine. 22 representatives of the biggest corpor-
ations in downtown Los Angeles met in 1969
to try to solve the problem of a declining
downtown Los Angeles. They fonned the
Committee for Central City Planning (CCCP).
The redevelopment plan is the direct result of
theIr effort
An article in Forbes Magazine in 1973 dia-
. cussed this downtown redevelopment plan for
1m Angeles, who would Lenefit, and how
these 22 top executives planned to divert
around $3 billion in tax revenues to subsidize
enough construction to tfDubIe downtown of-
lice space and retail sales by 1990.
The article quotes Bill Bird. former chair.
man of the CCCP, as sayin~. "Downtown isn't
really blighted. Declaring it blighted is just a
tooL Think of it as a crowbar 10 pry open the
tax coffers."
Forhes Magazine also .tated, "Here Is
where the taxpayer comea in; the business-
men have elected him (the Llxpayer) to bank-
roll their dreams."
That's exactly what tax increment financ.
ing means-in this case a $4.6 billion bankroll
for private gain.
lf you consider the automatic tax override
the Los Angeles Board of Education gets to
make up for tax increment losses. another
$2.3 billion is added for a whopping total tax
cost of $6.9 billion in 35 years. .
I'm opposed to it
Furthermore. a redevelopment project
poses thc threat of condemnation. This has
placed the lifetime investment of ma"" small
downtown property owners in jeopardy. They
oppose it
Property owners, county-wide, will be
taxed to subsidize a gigantic downtown
"image" er;:o trip for a few transient corporate
executives. They oppose it
The response to my opposition to this multi-
billion dollar land grab, from chambers of
commerce, homeowner orr;:anizations and in-
dIviduals. has been overwhelmingly support-
ive. ami it has been countv-wide.
To those who feel as I do about this down.
town redevelopment plan; Ll't your council.
man know. Ask him to vote to rescind the
proje<:l. or at least to allow the voters to de-
cide the issue.
. ~"...
THE NEWS
V01I N..,. (Calif.) - FrIcIoy, 0ct0Iter M, 1975
Vot~rs Bypassed On Renewal
By ouawooo SCOTT
Overlooked or barely mentioned
~o far is the most significant vote in
the massive Los Angeles downtown
redevelopment controversy.
The 5-to- 7 vote, during the City
Council's fire-and-brimstone Hession
last week, was an effort to treat the
hassle the same as other issues.
Councilman Joel WachR (Second
District) authored the defeated
motion that ealled for support of sta te
legiHlati0n to permit a referendum if
City Charter requirements were n'let.
The major compromise featu1'l'
was that Wachs raised the required
~ignatmes to 10% rather than the Vi
in the hill byState Sen. Alan Robbins
(D-20th District), North Hollywood.
Without Position
After six hours of public hearing
a nd debate, the Council ended with-
out a pm:ition on the Robhins bill,
which has passed the Senate and will
be heard in the Assembly after the
fir!'t of the year.
But in disposing of the Wachs'
motion: seven Council members did
something else.
They, in effect, said the voters are
intelligent enough to decidedty mat-
ters - including choosing a Council
repreHentative - hut the decision on
:-;uch a complicated matter as rede-
realty does show that it wasn't the
issue, it was the politics of it.
"t really hate to see that, for this
matter is too important to be decided
totally on Its political ramifications."
Issue 'Overheats'
Wachs agreed that the red-hot is-
sue is going to get even hotter.
"If you don't give someone a
chance to speak, they will give you 10
times as much trouble a.s they would
have otherwise," he said.
Here is how the vote went on the
Wachs'motion:
Against - Gilbert W. Lindsay
(Ninth Disttict), John S. Gibson Jr.
U5th District), Marvin Braude (11th
District). Dave Cunningham (10th
DistricO, Robert Farrell (Eighth Dis-
tricO, John Ferraro (Fourth Dis-
tricO, Louis R. Nowell (First Dis-
trict).
For - Wachs, Zev Yaroslavsky
(Fifth District), Ernani Bernardi
(Seventh District), Robert M. Wilkin-
80n 02th District), Mrs. Peggy Ste-
venson (13th District).
Absent: Donald D.Lorenzen
(Third DistricO, Mr. Pat Russell
(Sixth District), Arthur K. Snyder
(14th Diiltrict).
(Durwood Scott is a Valley News
reporter who covers the City Hall. j
""
-~
THE
DOII..eUI
FACES OPEl
REBEI.LIM
By Robert Meyers
A single councilman's dissent has grown into a thunderstorm of
protest over "the biggest boondoggle since phony B~gMAC bonds..."
82 UJS ANGELU;
City (\llUlcilman Donald B. I.orenzen had only
left his seat in the Couneil cham her for a few min-
utes last Octoner to ehat with an aide. When he re-
turned, he was astonished to discover his vote had
heen faked on ,I measure concerning the controver-
sial downtown redevelopment plan -- which is al-
terlwtely regarded as downtown's salvation or a
hill ion-dollar scam against the taxpayers, depend-
ing on whom you talk to.
The phony Lorenzen vote - apparently another
councilman pushed his tally lever - enahled the
Council to \lppOSe a citywide referendum on the
matter. And Lorenzen, who had originally voted
for the massive plan, was so out raged hy the high-
handed maneuver that he ultimately decided to
join a suit hy fellow councilman Ernani Bernardi to
stop it.
Opponents of the downtown plan. which was
approved hy the City Council on July I X, see the
faked Lorenzen vote as a rare, above-ground ex-
ample of the kind of downtown power-mongering
they've been fighting. They condemn the plan as the
biggest hoondoggle since the last carny harker
pal:ked up his shell game and moved to Manhattan
to ,>ell phony Big MAC bonds. Proponents say that,
unless the plan is implemented, the downtown area
will really look like blighted, bombed-out Manhat-
tan - hut without, the Big Apple's charms, what-
ever they may be. They have no explanation for
the I.orenzen vote.
The swirls of power around the plan actually
hegan more than two years ago. In late July of
A homeolVller.\"repre,fl,'ntative fire.I' {Ill angry I'olley
at the eRA at NovemiJer 5 protest meeting.
r
11...1 SUDDose
Bradley'S reali'
concernedlhat
some bum mlDh"
lall alalnstone 01
the Areo Dlllars
and break hiS
arm... "
84 LOS ANGELES
uses those moneys for area improvements.
The theory is that the property owners are actu-
ally paying . for the improvement of properties
which will eventulllly go on the tax rolls them-
selves. The prql>lem is that the taxing agencies are
thus depriveddt,U'lti~ipated taxes - those moneys
which wert to th~CRA instead of to the tax man.
To make up the-qifference, the tax man does what
he does best: he' taxes. He taxes everyone and
everything within his jurisdiction, which is usually
much larger thanthe CRA area. And he continues
those increascr~ taxes until the life of the CRA
project runs o!J.t.,Ahd that, friends, is where we
find ourselves today: looking down the barrel at a
proposed Community Redevelopment Agency for
a 25S.block, l,s50-acre area of downtown Los
Angele~, wittla life expectancy of either 15 or 35
years and a price tag of either $750 million tops
or $4.6 billion and climbing, depending on whose
estimate you're looking at.
The dollar figure is important, since a fraction
of that is what homeowners wi\l find tacked on to
their annual tax bilIs and renters wi\l find tacked
on to their monthly payments. It might be as little
as $13 a year - or as much as $200. All depends
upon whom you're talking to, whom you believe,
when you hear them and which way the wind is
blowing.
In 1969, the Los Angeles City Planning Depart-
ment published an ambitious plan for the down-
town area. The plan then included a new industrial
area, warehouses, new office buildings and some
new housing. Reportedly, there was a feeling on the
part of vested downtown interests that this plan
was not imaginative enough to deal fulIy with the
problems they faced: principally, the continued
flight to the suburbs of stores and people. Most of
the concerned corporations belonged to the Central
City Association (CCA), a lobbying group that is
to business what the little black box is to Gerald
Ford: when it ticks, you listen.
Wanting to put its "input" into the downtown
plans, the CCA set up a corporation known as the
Committee for Central City Planning, Inc. (CCCP
- getting all these letters straight?) Then it pre-
vailed upon the, City Council to put up $250,000
for another study of what the downtown area
should really be like. CCCP said it would put up an
equal amount of money, for a grand total of
$500,000.
This extraordinary private funding of public
policy is something that continues to rankle with
critics of the plan. Apparently, it has never happened
before or since in Los Angeles. It is regarded as
being similar to asking the National Rifle Associa-
tion to investigate the question of whether citizens
should be alIowed to own guns - you won't exact.
Iy get an impartial answer. Nevertheless, this joint
CCCP-City Council funding went on, and, a firm
from Philadelphia was retained. Philadelphia is the
place whose mayor recently broke his leg as he
tripped over his brother, the fire commissioner, as
both of them ran away from a fire. Some critics
MAJOR LANDLORDS IN THE 'BUOHTED'AREA
According to the Community Information Project
(CIP), a public-interest organization staffed by law-
yers and researchers, the property owned by the 25
largest corporations downtown accounts for more
than one third of the total assessed value within this
"blighted" area. The top property owners among
the downtown CCA backers of the plan are:
Security "acific National Bank (includes its land-
owning subsidiary, Pacific Southwest Realty),
$31.2 million;
Prudential Lifelnsurance, $26.3 million;
United CalljfQrnia Bank, $18 million;
Times.MirrorCo., $15.5 million;
Occidental Life, $13.9 million;
California Mart, $10.1 million;
Los Angeles Hilton, $6 million;
Title Insurance & Trust, $2.6 million;
Union Bank,$l.1 million.
Patterns are interesting. SeCl!rity Pacific, its com-
panies and trusts own 53 parcels; Prudential owns
13; UCB, 20; Times-Mirror and allied companies,
33; Union Bank, 13; TI, 26; Occidental Life, 44.
Because it is so much a part of the power structure
of 'Los Angeles, particularly the downtown area,
the Timesfelt compelled on November 9 to state in
an editorial that it would not realize any "tax ad-
vantage" from the area redevelopment plan. (Times-
Mirror chairman Franklin Murphy heads one of the
redevelopment committees, along with Occidental
Life chairman Earl Clark.)
There will be certain emoluments, however, that
all property owners will enjoy if the CRA plan goes
ahead. The biggest is that whatever improvements
are made in the area will not cost the companies one
cent. Though improvements will be paid for by the
CRA with money it gets from the companies, those
moneys would have been paid out anyway - but
to the tax coffers. Under the tax-increment plan, the
money will be used to improve the general ;irea.
Although the improvements will undoubtedly force
a rise in assessed value, no one expects the extra
tax rate to equal the cost of the improvements.
Many of the Times' properties (basically parking
lots and small buildings) are located directly south
of the Times building, between Main and Hill, and
between 2nd and 3rd. The newspaper itself takes up
the entire block between Spring and Broadway and
1st and 2nd.
This general area has been the site of recent land
speculation" CIP reports. The mammoth Southern-
Pacific Railroad has in the last 18 months bought
16 parcels with an estimated market value of more
than $1 million.
UCB is also in the specula,tion sweepstakes, ac-
quiring land with an estimated market value in
excess of $1.44 million.
According to CIP, an otherwise unknown firm
known as Media Properties has been acquiring land
near the Times and then changing title with other
firms also known only by their names (no addresses
given). Total value of these properties is more
than $4 million.
-.-,
DOWNTOWN
continued from page 85
was approved last July - then the rhet-
oric really hit the fan. Bernardi filed his
suit, State Senator Alan Robbins began
harping on the tax-increment angle and
Phil Watson lent the prestige of his office
and, statisticians to a fight on the pro-
posal. The Roche group changed its
name to the Los Angeles County Tax-
payers Defense Fund.
Defense against what? Well, the costs,
oasically. Since the property owners will
have to make up whatever moneys above
the freeze line are sent to the CRA, that
cost factor becomes important. When
the issue" was presented to the City
Council, the general figure used was
$44 million - really not much when
spread over the full 35 years of the
project.
Bernardi protested, however (actual-
ly, he screamed), that the $44-million
figure was arrived at by using incorrect
figures. Watson chimed in that he was
right - and dubbed the CRA plan a
"giant ripoff." Later, a city auditor wrote
a letter agreeing with both of them. The
donnybrook was on.
Using roughly' a 6 per cent growth
factor over 35 years, the "true" cost to
the taxpayers could become $4.6 billion,
Watson said. Upon learning this, the
county Board of Supervisors, led by
Baxter Ward, voted to join Bernardi in
his suit. Even the Times, which had been
looking on approvingly at the progress of
the plan, had to start admitting with
some irritation that, yes, there was some
opposition to it.
Somewhat earlier, Robbins, sensing a
very hot political potato, had seen yet
another way to scorch Bradley. He re-
searched the original 1952 CRA law
and discovered that the question of
whether a city could fund a CRA could
not be put to the voters. Accordingly,
last August, he introduced SB 1291,
which would give local voters the right
to say yea or nay, if not in a vote, then
in a referendum. His bill passed the
Senate, and he thinks it will pass the
Assembly when it reconvenes; he also
expects Governor Brown to sign.
He is ambitious, of course, but he re-
sponds to insinuations that his interest in
the situation is purely one of politics by
saying, "And I suppose his [Bradley's]
interest is all pure and holy, and he's
really concerned about whether some
bum falls against one of the pillars at
the Arco Towers and breaks his arm?"
Robbins' bill has now put the liberal
Bradley people in an odd posture: they
must oppose a referendum because they
fear a defeat. They claim they oppose it
because it applies only to Los Angeles
and not to the rest of the state. As a CRA
aide once said, however, people might
get confused and vote the wrong way.
As the debate has heated up, lots of
numbers have been flying around. For
example, when Terry Hatter defends the
"blighted area" designation by noting
that the downtown area has lost 6,000
jobs because of companies which have
moved out, Phil Watson answers that the
area has gained 7,500 jobs with the addi-
tion of the Arco Towers and the Broad-
way Plaza complex. "I defy them to
prove to me that employment has gone
down in that area," Watson says.
To charges that crime in the central
business district is often as much as eight
or ten times higher than the city average,
Bernardi aide Art White pulls out sta-
tistics published by the LAPD which
show that crime in some categories is
on a par with that in other areas, and at
most might be only two or three times
higher. It's higher, he agrees - but not
by the huge margins they use.
To claims that the property values
have decreased or increased only margin-
ally, Watson says his figures show the
area has increased in value over the past
ten years at a rate of 5.7 per cent, using
compound figures, and 7.4 per cent using
simple figures. "And this despite all the
setbacks," Watson says.
Should the CRA plan go through, it
would cause the construction of many
new and higher rises - how many is not
clear, since the number is not specified
in the CRA plan. Watson, however, won-
ders what good this would do, since he
says there are 1.3 million empty square
UPDATED
F ACT
SHE E T
S B 1291, A B 746
DOWNTOWN REDEVELOPMENT
REFERENDUM ON TAX INCREMENT FINANCING
1. The Mayor and Council of Los Angeles have designated all
of downtown LA (Hollywood Freeway to Santa Monica Freeway, Harbor
Freeway to Alameda) as a "blighted" area, thus qualifying the
property within the area, including the ARCO Towers, the Times-
Mirror Building, the Broadway Plaza, and o,ther hi-rise buildings,
for preferential tax treatment at the expense of the remaining
Los Angeles taxpayers.
2. When this was presented to the Council for approval, the
amount of the revenue loss to local government, through tax incre-
ment financing, was estimated at $44 million. As a result of major
errors admitted subsequent to the date of approval, the estimate
has been revised upward. The Mayor now proposes an initial "ceiling"
of $750 million and the best available estimate, from Councilman
Bernardi and the Tax Assessor, is that $4.6 billion of tax preference
will accrue to the benefit of downtown property owners as a result
of inflationary increases in value over the next 35 years. (The original
estimate used the wrong base multiplier, the wrong time period, the
wrong annual inflationary assumption and presumed no increase in
annual tax rate) .
3. The L. A. County Assessor has estimated that property owners
in the remainder of the city will ultimately have their taxes in-
creased by l~~ to make up the loss. L. A. Unified School District
taxes will go up l~~, and the county tax rate, for all county
taxpayers, will go up 5%. This means that the annual tax bill
for a typical LA homeowner will be up by $100 to $200; rent on
a typical apartment unit will go up $5-$10 a month.
4. The justification given for the preferential tax treatment
is that downtown property owners need the "advantage" to compete with
developments elsewhere in the city and county. Opponents object to
requiring the taxpayers in non-downtown areas to foot the bill.
Many construction industry experts are concerned that the increased
tax rate outside the downtown area will bring construction in those
areas to a halt.
5. Plan opponents question the wisdom of forcing more develop-
ment into the downtown area with the resultant increase in congestion,
traffic, and air pOllution. The size of the potential public debt,
over $4,000,000,000.00, is the largest in the history of California
local government and approaches the total indebtedness of New York
L""'.'; ,,,,* 'I 7' mh__ ______-...&..,.__.c__J::______.: ___ ...:l.-___..I..-__________________________..!____ _____..L-_______~____.
-----'.
po
PART!AL LIST OF OFFICIALS AND ORGANIZATIONS
WHICH ARE IN SUPPORT OF SB 1291 - AB 746
OR IN OPPOSITION TO THE DOWNTOWN PLAN
EDITORIAL SUPPORT
KABC (Radio)
KABC (TV)
KFI
KFWB
KMPC
. KNXT
KNX
Belvedere Citizen
Eagle Rock Sentinel
East Side Journal
El Sereno Star
Encinian
Highland Park News Herald & Journal
Lincoln Heights Bulletin News
Northeast. Star Review
Palisadian Post
Santa Monica Evening Outlook
South pasadena Journal
Studio\City Graphic
Sunland-Tujunga Record Ledger
Valley News & Green Sheet
-2-
HOMEOWNER ASSOCIATIONS
Atwater ,Action Conunittee
Beverly-wilshire Homeowners Association
Beverly Wilshire Homes Association
Brentwood Conununity Federation
Brentwood Homeowners Association
Chatsworth Lake citizens Conunittee
Elysian Valley Property Owners, Renter, & Businessmen's
Association
Encino Property Owners Assn.
Federation of Hillside and canyon Homeowners Associations
Lawndale Property Owners
North Hollywood Homeowners Association
RENTER ORGANIZATIONS
Apartment Association of San Fernando Valley - Board of
Directors
Apartment House Association of L. A. County
California Housing Council
Seniors for political Action
Tenant's Rights Coalition
Venice Town Council
-3-
EDUCATIONAL GROUPS,
Apperson Street PTA
California Teachers Association
Canaberry Avenue PTA
L. A. Community College Board of Trustees
L. A. County Superintendent of Schools
Parent Teachers Association (PTA) (Various districts and schools)
Professional Educators of Los Angeles (PELA)
United Teachers of Los Angeles (UTLA), AFL-CIO - Board of
Directors
CHAMBERS OF COMMERCE
Agoura Chamber of Commerce
Arleta Chamber of Commerce
Associated Chambers of Commerce of San Fernando Valley
Encino Chamber of Commerce
Granada Hills Chamber of Commerce
Hollywood Chamber of Commerce
Mission Hills Chamber of Commerce
North Hollywood Chamber of Commerce
Pacific Palisades Chamber of Commerce
Panorama City Chamber of Commerce
Reseda Chamber of Commerce
San Pedro Chamber of Community Development and Commerce
Sepulveda Chamber of Commerce
r.
-4-
CHAMBERS OF COMMERCE (Continued)
Studio City Chamber of Commerce
Sun Valley Chamber of Commerce
Tarzana Chamber of Commerce
The Valley Round Table Council
Toluca Lake Chamber of Commerce
Van Nuys Chamber of Commerce
Westchester Chamber of Commerce
Woodland Hills Chamber of Commerce
ELECTED OFFICIALS
L. A. Councilman Ernani Bernardi
L. A. Councilman Marvin Braude
L. A. Councilman Donald Lorenzen
L. A. Councilwoman Peggy Stevenson
L. A. Councilman Joel Wachs
L. A. Councilman Robert Wilkinson
L. A. Councilman Zev Yaroslavsky
County Assessor Phillip vfatson
Supervisor James Hayes
Supervisor Peter Schabarum
Supervisor Baxter Ward
State Senator Lou Cusanovich
State Senator H. L. Richardson
State Senator Alan Robbins
State Senator Newton Russell
State Senator John Stull
State Senator James Wedworth
,..
-5-
ELECTED OFFICIALS ( Continued)
Assemblyman Mike Antonovich
Assemblyman William campbell
Assemblyman Fred Chel
Assemblyman Bob Cline
Assemblyman Mike Cullen
Assemblywoman Teresa Hughes
Assemblyman Robert McLennan
Assemblyman Joseph Montoya
Central Basin Municipal Water District
City of Rosemead
City of San Fernando
City of Vernon
L. A. County Board of Supervisors
POLITICAL ORGANIZATIONS
Antelope Valley Democratic Club
Antelope Valley Democratic Women's Club
Beverly Hills Democratic Club
California Democratic Council - Urban Planning Committee
East valley Democratic Club
Belvedere Democratic Club
L. A. County Democratic Central Committee
, <,
-6-
POLITICAL ORGANIZATIONS (Continued)
League to Preserve Constitutional Civil Rights
Mar vista Democratic Club
Moderate Democratic Club
North East Democratic Forum
Santa Monica Democratic Women's Club
Sherman Oaks Democratic Club
Torchbearers of Lakewood Democratic Club
Torrance Democratic Club
Unique Democratic Club
West pico Democratic Club
MISCELLANEOUS CIVIC ORGANIZATIONS
American Consumers Together
Better Government Association of California
Citizens Coalition on Redevelopment Abuse
Citizens League Opposed to Unfair Taxation (CLOUT)
Coalition for Economic Survival
L. A. County Taxpayers Defense League
Lions Club of van Nuys
Pacific Palisades Conununity Council
Pacific Palisades Sentinel Associates
Project Area Conunittee
Rotary Club of Panorama City
San Fernando Valley Board of Realtors
The Breakfast Forum
Van Nuys Optimist Club