Officials of the State of California recently issued a formal denial of a request from the Los Angeles Garment & Citizen for a copy of the grant application submitted by the City of Los Angeles as part of a $6.6 million plan to purchase a 0.7-acre parcel of land at 9th and Hill streets and turn it into a so-called 'pocket park'.
State officials have said that some price or estimated price for the land was included in the application for a grant to help pay for the project, which is being spearheaded by 14th District Los Angeles City Councilmember Jose Huizar.
The refusal by both city and state officials to disclose details that would indicate how much of the $6.6 million would go to purchase the parcel of land at 9th and Hill streets — and how much would be used to pay for amenities such as a performance stage, a play area, "fitness stations" and other features on the site — has raised concerns among some community members. Critics say the lack of specifics leaves them with insufficient information to judge whether the plan is feasible or desirable.
The decision to deny the Garment & Citizen's request for information appears to rely on legal or regulatory authority, although state officials referred to such matters in vague terms.
"It is California State Parks' Office of Grants and Local Services' position that the integrity and confidentiality of the deliberative process must be protected and therefore we are withholding the application pursuant to Government Code section 6255," according to an e-mail sent to the Garment & Citizen.
Section 6255 of the state's Government Code deals is titled "Justification for Withholding Records" and states that documents such as the city's grant application will be available to the public "unless otherwise prohibited by law" or in cases where the information is "exempt from disclosure pursuant to this chapter..."
State officials had not responded, as of presstime, to a follow-up query from the Garment & Citizen on whether any specific law or regulation either prohibits the disclosure of the grant application or renders the document exempt from requirements on making it available to the public.
Meanwhile, the state's claim contradicts earlier statements by Roy Stearns, director of communications for the California Department of Parks, which oversees the grant program that would provide the $5 million to the city to help pay for the park deal if the application is approved. Stearns responded to inquiries for a prior story by the Garment & Citizen by indicating that the decision to withhold information on the city's grant proposal is based on internal, discretionary considerations.
It remained unclear, at presstime, whether Stearns had mischaracterized the matter or the later message that officially denied the request for the information is based on mistaken assumptions by other state officials.
The lack of information and clarity leaves some observers on alert about the proposal at 9th and Hill streets, which comes approximately one year after city officials agreed to pay $5.6 million for a similarly sized parcel of land intended to be turned into a park on the 400 block of S. Spring Street. The price tag for the parcel on Spring Street included only the cost of the land, and city officials eventually cut their offer to $5.1 million after a series of reports in the Garment & Citizen shed light on a number of irregularities and inconsistencies in methods used to determine the land's value.
Meanwhile, the real estate market has yet to see a significant recovery in the Downtown area over the past year. The parcel of land at 9th and Hill streets has recently been listed for sale at $8 million, although it's found no takers after several years on the market. Some real estate industry professionals have said they believe that the parcel could be purchased for significantly less, although it remains a matter of guesswork to determine what sort of savings the city could realize amid the ongoing downturn. The Los Angeles Times recently reported on estimations by local real estate industry professional Steven Norris of Pasadena-based Norris Realty Advisors, who said that prices for commercial parcels throughout the city are currently 40% to 60% below the peak values they hit several years ago, during the real estate boom that preceded the current economic downturn.
That estimation could put the value of the parcel at 9th and Hill streets in a range of $3.2 million to $4.8 million — and that's based on a price that never produced a sale of the land. A negotiation based on that range could, in any case, lead to big savings for the cash-strapped city, which is currently considering cuts to parks and recreation programs, among others.
A number of community members who have expressed concerns about the lack of information on the price the city has proposed to pay for the site at 9th and Hill street have requested that their names be withheld from publication over fears of retaliation from City Hall.
The proposal has drawn support from a band of local residents, including a number who own or rent condominiums at the Eastern Columbia Building at 9th Street and Broadway. The site they hope to see purchased as a park is immediately adjacent to the Eastern Columbia.
Concerns about the deal reach beyond the Downtown community, however, because the $5 million the city is seeking for the park deal would come from funds raised under the banner of Proposition 84, which passed in a statewide vote in 2006.
The bonds issued used under Prop 84 will eventually have to be repaid by taxpayers, with interest.
Huizar has said the city also plans to contribute $1.6 million toward the park plan, using developers' fees and "other funds."
A final decision from state officials on the city's grant application is expected in September.
Related article:
• City, State Won't Say Price of Land for 'Pocket Park' at 9th & Hill
Jerry Sullivan is editor of the L.A. Garment & Citizen.
Read more stories from the L.A. Garment & Citizen »
Leave a comment