City leaders seem to think stadia promote economic development: despite expert testimony to the contrary. Why are they so misguided? Maybe they want to be. After all, people love football in this country. And stadia are huge projects that draw lots of media attention.
City leaders justify stadia as job creators; and so they are willing to pay public money for them. Research shows, however, that stadia create few permanent jobs. There are construction jobs, but most other employment is of limited quality and quantity.
City leaders also justify stadia as revenue-generators: including sales and hotel taxes. Research shows stadia generate “replacement economics.” Families will replace a trip to the movies with NFL tickets; they will not use disposable income for both. This is not economic growth. It is revenue cannibalized from other parts of the city.
Stadia in the absence of subsidies are fine; but subsidies are the problem.
Subsidies flow to wealthy owners and high-income football players, but not to typical taxpayers. Your average taxpayer can barely afford to enjoy the stadium for which their money subsidizes. Consider this: a family of four need somewhere between $400-600 to enjoy an NFL game and a few hotdogs. Should a portion of their income also pay for the stadium?
AEG proposes to build Farmers Field in downtown Los Angeles. Majestic Realty proposes the other option: Football Stadium at Grand Crossing, in the City of Industry. Both proposals claim 100% private financing, but this is simply not true. AEG needs the City to provide bond guarantees and offsite infrastructure. Majestic needs public funding for traffic mitigation. These are subsidies. Yes, L.A. wants an NFL team, but private developers and the handful of owners who will profit, should pay.
Sunday, November 11, 2012
Wednesday, November 7, 2012
Football and the Election
This is a fun segment created by Atif Hashwi and I.
It aired on Platforum Sports, Monday, November 5th, on Trojan Vision in Los Angeles.
Monday, October 29, 2012
Sports Reporting
Learning what it's like to be a sideline reporter for television. Here's a short video from my experience shadowing Yogi Roth.
Tuesday, August 28, 2012
Porn Shop in Chinatown
Check out the website here
Here is a link direct to the Old Man Porn Shop video
Thursday, April 5, 2012
Mega-event Strategy for Redevelopment in Rio de Janeiro
----
By: Paige Battcher
University of Southern California
Mega-events —namely International Expositions, FIFA World Cups and Olympic Games —are increasingly seen as catalysts for both city place-making and global attraction. The use of mega-events for urban regeneration and economic development, aside from the 1992 Barcelona Games (coined as the “Barcelona Model”), has stirred increased criticism particularly in the last several decades. Not only have the scale and popularity of these events skyrocketed, but the public financial burden and complexity of risk have heightened. Some scholars question why such high volumes of public spending are committed to mega-events in places where a great percentage of the population is civically underserved, even of basic needs (Pillay & Bass, 2009); examples being the World Cup in South Africa and the Commonwealth Games in Delhi (Varrel & Kennedy, 2011).
So, how do countries and cities pay for these events? The common go-to answer is public-private partnerships. Although, some contend that even in pursuit of PPPs, there are too few cases where these provide sustainable funding solutions for mega-event development initiatives (Varrel and Kennedy, 2011). It is vital to remember that although mega-projects aim to stimulate medium to longterm private investment, these projects are typically a huge investment by the public sector. Furthermore, inherently these projects are more expensive (and some would argue less innovative) in the run up to a mega-event than would otherwise be the case. Take South Africa for instance, in preparation for the 2010 World Cup. The country experienced a shortage of skilled labor, construction materials rapidly rose in price due to unprecedented demand (only to fall again after the World Cup), and the time crunch made overspending an inevitable reality (Pillay et al., 2009).
Time and time again, newspaper articles hail the potential economic windfall that a host city will benefit during the bidding process for a mega-event. Time and time again —almost predictably so —the ‘windfall’ will have been highly overestimated, and although some industries may benefit (namely tourism), these benefits are significantly short-lived and the ‘multiplier effects’ intended to boost the economy in its entirety are rarely realized. In the same light, mega-events are seen by local businesses as a catalyst of economic ingenuity and growth; so whether outcomes merit the expectation or not, the mega-event acts as a catalyst to hope.
There are lessons to be gleaned from these trends. First of all, the onslaught of public pride surrounding most of these events is undeniable. The most successful cities have done well to capture this intangible benefit and momentum of civic pride. In 1994 leading up to the Sydney bid for the 2000 Olympics, New South Wales Premier, Nick Gieiner called a meeting of top media executives and asked for favoritism over sensationalism in their coverage of the bid, before even considering such a commitment of tax-payers funds. This wielded the “creation of a community of interest” that successfully spread positive feelings about the Games, which are claimed to have fueled private investments and the subsequent success of development projects and a successful Olympics (Varrel & Kennedy, 2011).
A host city should help amplify ambition of local entrepreneurs who are optimistic about possibilities a mega-event might bring to their businesses. Cities should solicit from within and give local business owners a stake in re-forming streets, in funding new real estate, and in re-thinking their roles in their surrounding communities. In fact, the microeconomic decisions of mega-event planning can shape future generations and may be more important in some cases than the 16 day event itself (or however many days).
Finally, in terms of financial interests, governments must work smarter to gain private partnerships. To strengthen private sector responsibility, overly concessionary projects should be avoided. Developers should not need heavy subsidy to consider investing in a time period of rapid growth for the city. The partnership should be a win-win. Rather, “performance-based projects” should be the focus (Flyvberg et al. 2003). During a period of great opportunity, smart decisions must be made; for the common tax payer is most at risk otherwise. Free handouts of public money should not be the answer. In 2007, Brazil’s federal government with the State and City of Rio de Janeiro spent a whopping $1.12 billion to host Pan American Games. Of the City’s expenditures, US$606 million, nearly 11% of those expenses where spent on two (2) public-private partnerships which rounded out to nearly the same amount spent on ‘urban infrastructure’ (15.8%). These expenditures did not represent private investment, they signified that PPPs appear to have cost the municipality an unfavorable proportion of the city’s total expenses in return for an extremely limited private investment in the future of Rio (Acioly Jr., 2001). Imagine that for a tiny fraction of the investment in these two mega PPPs, city management could claim partnership with dozens of local entreprenuers who expanded their business, invested in street cleanups, built new housing, started a community group, and invested in a stadium project (as micro investors).
Beyond the negative aspects, there are lessons to be learned. Despite the most adamant critics, athletic events have a natural capacity to stimulate civic pride. And, the legacies that mega-events leave behind are far greater than the event that takes place (Hall, 2006). “A stadium filled with thousands (joined by thousands more at home before the TV) screaming for Cleveland or Baltimore (or whatever) is a scene difficult to fashion otherwise. This enthusiasm can be drawn upon...in order to gain general acceptance for local growth-oriented programs” (Molotch, 1976). As a final remark, let the lessons of past events help cities draw upon the enthusiasm of today to attract local investment, civic participation and purposeful planning for generations to come.
References:
Acioly Jr., C. (2001). Reviewing urban revitalization strategies in Rio de Janeiro: From urban project to urban management approaches. Geoforum , 32, 509-520.
Essex, S., & Chalkley, B. (1998). Olympic Games: catalyst of urban change. Leisure Studies , 187-206.
Flyvbjerg, B., Bruzelius, N., & Rothengatter, W. (2003). Megaprojects and risk: an anatomy of ambition. United Kingdom; New York: Cambridge University Press.
Hall, M. C. (2006). Urban entrepreneurship, corporate interests and sports mega-events: the thin policies of competitiveness within the hard outcomes of neoliberalism. Sociological Review .
Molotch, H. (1976) ‘The city as a growth machine: Towards a political economy of place’, American Journal of Sociology 82 (2): 309–332.
Pillay, U., Tomlinson, R., & Bass, O. (2009). Development and Dreams The Urban Legacy of the 2010 Football World Cup. Cape Town, South Africa: Human Sciences Research Council (HSRC) Press.
Shoval, N. (2002). A New Phase in the Competition for Olympic Gold: The London and New York Bids for the 2012 Games. Journal of Urban Affairs , 24 (5), 583-599.
Varrel, A. and Kennedy, L. (2011), “Mega-events and megaprojects,” Chance 2 Sustain.
By: Paige Battcher
University of Southern California
April 2012
----Mega-events —namely International Expositions, FIFA World Cups and Olympic Games —are increasingly seen as catalysts for both city place-making and global attraction. The use of mega-events for urban regeneration and economic development, aside from the 1992 Barcelona Games (coined as the “Barcelona Model”), has stirred increased criticism particularly in the last several decades. Not only have the scale and popularity of these events skyrocketed, but the public financial burden and complexity of risk have heightened. Some scholars question why such high volumes of public spending are committed to mega-events in places where a great percentage of the population is civically underserved, even of basic needs (Pillay & Bass, 2009); examples being the World Cup in South Africa and the Commonwealth Games in Delhi (Varrel & Kennedy, 2011). On the other hand, mega-events lead to great expectations of economic development, sustained international investment and progressive urban transformation (Essex & Chalkley, 1998). However, are these merely expectations and not representative of reality? The literature, for the most part, points to fact that the less advanced the economy of a host city, the more financial burden that country will suffer. Despite this understanding, many countries continue to bid on mega-events with the intention of undertaking widespread urban transformation. The debate --as to whether this strategy is beneficial to growing nations-- is slanted to the negative, yet it is an on-going and dynamic debate that involves the intangible benefit of civic pride. Perhpas this is the reason why Noam Shoval questions the intention of London and New York, two world class cities, to bid for the 2012 Olympics (of course, London won this bid). Actually Shoval suggests that “In the case of those world cities, the emphasis appears more on strengthening their global status in an era of growing inter-urban competition and to finance large-scale planned construction projects in those cities” (2002). This is indicative of an international trend of using mega-events to finance large-scale development projects; redevelopment of old and young economies.
So, how do countries and cities pay for these events? The common go-to answer is public-private partnerships. Although, some contend that even in pursuit of PPPs, there are too few cases where these provide sustainable funding solutions for mega-event development initiatives (Varrel and Kennedy, 2011). It is vital to remember that although mega-projects aim to stimulate medium to longterm private investment, these projects are typically a huge investment by the public sector. Furthermore, inherently these projects are more expensive (and some would argue less innovative) in the run up to a mega-event than would otherwise be the case. Take South Africa for instance, in preparation for the 2010 World Cup. The country experienced a shortage of skilled labor, construction materials rapidly rose in price due to unprecedented demand (only to fall again after the World Cup), and the time crunch made overspending an inevitable reality (Pillay et al., 2009).
Time and time again, newspaper articles hail the potential economic windfall that a host city will benefit during the bidding process for a mega-event. Time and time again —almost predictably so —the ‘windfall’ will have been highly overestimated, and although some industries may benefit (namely tourism), these benefits are significantly short-lived and the ‘multiplier effects’ intended to boost the economy in its entirety are rarely realized. In the same light, mega-events are seen by local businesses as a catalyst of economic ingenuity and growth; so whether outcomes merit the expectation or not, the mega-event acts as a catalyst to hope.
There are lessons to be gleaned from these trends. First of all, the onslaught of public pride surrounding most of these events is undeniable. The most successful cities have done well to capture this intangible benefit and momentum of civic pride. In 1994 leading up to the Sydney bid for the 2000 Olympics, New South Wales Premier, Nick Gieiner called a meeting of top media executives and asked for favoritism over sensationalism in their coverage of the bid, before even considering such a commitment of tax-payers funds. This wielded the “creation of a community of interest” that successfully spread positive feelings about the Games, which are claimed to have fueled private investments and the subsequent success of development projects and a successful Olympics (Varrel & Kennedy, 2011).
A host city should help amplify ambition of local entrepreneurs who are optimistic about possibilities a mega-event might bring to their businesses. Cities should solicit from within and give local business owners a stake in re-forming streets, in funding new real estate, and in re-thinking their roles in their surrounding communities. In fact, the microeconomic decisions of mega-event planning can shape future generations and may be more important in some cases than the 16 day event itself (or however many days).
Finally, in terms of financial interests, governments must work smarter to gain private partnerships. To strengthen private sector responsibility, overly concessionary projects should be avoided. Developers should not need heavy subsidy to consider investing in a time period of rapid growth for the city. The partnership should be a win-win. Rather, “performance-based projects” should be the focus (Flyvberg et al. 2003). During a period of great opportunity, smart decisions must be made; for the common tax payer is most at risk otherwise. Free handouts of public money should not be the answer. In 2007, Brazil’s federal government with the State and City of Rio de Janeiro spent a whopping $1.12 billion to host Pan American Games. Of the City’s expenditures, US$606 million, nearly 11% of those expenses where spent on two (2) public-private partnerships which rounded out to nearly the same amount spent on ‘urban infrastructure’ (15.8%). These expenditures did not represent private investment, they signified that PPPs appear to have cost the municipality an unfavorable proportion of the city’s total expenses in return for an extremely limited private investment in the future of Rio (Acioly Jr., 2001). Imagine that for a tiny fraction of the investment in these two mega PPPs, city management could claim partnership with dozens of local entreprenuers who expanded their business, invested in street cleanups, built new housing, started a community group, and invested in a stadium project (as micro investors).
Beyond the negative aspects, there are lessons to be learned. Despite the most adamant critics, athletic events have a natural capacity to stimulate civic pride. And, the legacies that mega-events leave behind are far greater than the event that takes place (Hall, 2006). “A stadium filled with thousands (joined by thousands more at home before the TV) screaming for Cleveland or Baltimore (or whatever) is a scene difficult to fashion otherwise. This enthusiasm can be drawn upon...in order to gain general acceptance for local growth-oriented programs” (Molotch, 1976). As a final remark, let the lessons of past events help cities draw upon the enthusiasm of today to attract local investment, civic participation and purposeful planning for generations to come.
References:
Acioly Jr., C. (2001). Reviewing urban revitalization strategies in Rio de Janeiro: From urban project to urban management approaches. Geoforum , 32, 509-520.
Essex, S., & Chalkley, B. (1998). Olympic Games: catalyst of urban change. Leisure Studies , 187-206.
Flyvbjerg, B., Bruzelius, N., & Rothengatter, W. (2003). Megaprojects and risk: an anatomy of ambition. United Kingdom; New York: Cambridge University Press.
Hall, M. C. (2006). Urban entrepreneurship, corporate interests and sports mega-events: the thin policies of competitiveness within the hard outcomes of neoliberalism. Sociological Review .
Molotch, H. (1976) ‘The city as a growth machine: Towards a political economy of place’, American Journal of Sociology 82 (2): 309–332.
Pillay, U., Tomlinson, R., & Bass, O. (2009). Development and Dreams The Urban Legacy of the 2010 Football World Cup. Cape Town, South Africa: Human Sciences Research Council (HSRC) Press.
Shoval, N. (2002). A New Phase in the Competition for Olympic Gold: The London and New York Bids for the 2012 Games. Journal of Urban Affairs , 24 (5), 583-599.
Varrel, A. and Kennedy, L. (2011), “Mega-events and megaprojects,” Chance 2 Sustain.
Tuesday, March 6, 2012
London's Olympic Village
London's East Side is the site of the 2012 Olympic Village and the future home for more than a thousand families. One of the biggest real estate acquisitions in London's history. Article published by the Urban Land Institute is linked below.
http://urbanland.uli.org/Articles/2012/Jan/MorrisonLondon?utm_source=uli&utm_medium=eblast&utm_campaign=030512
http://urbanland.uli.org/Articles/2012/Jan/MorrisonLondon?utm_source=uli&utm_medium=eblast&utm_campaign=030512
 |
| An aerial view of Olympic Park in London, looking south through the parklands area. |
Friday, March 2, 2012
Film Festival!
This is my first film festival. They are screening eight short films, mine included!
 |
| SHORT DOCUMENTARY > Na Sombra do Maracana (In the Shadow of Maracana Stadium): In preparation for the 2016 Summer Olympics, Maracanã Stadium in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, undergoes major renovation. This film exposes a darker side of urban 'progress' as a nearby community is affected by the changes. |
 |
| THE CREW --representing four countries and six personalities. From left: Luis Carlos Nascimento of Cinema Nosso, Dorian London of Rio Film School, Paul Poule, me, "Pleks", Michal Jakubowski. |
Tuesday, February 21, 2012
International Olympic Commitee WOMEN AND SPORT World Conference - Closing Ceremony 2012
 |
| ANIMATED PHOTOS (Copyright Paige Battcher and OptimismTravels.com): 1) Olympic Rings, 2) Conference logo, 3) Me at the podium...a girl can dream right?, 4) Closing ceremonies, 5) Closing ceremonies --including IOC Member and Director of LA84 Anita DeFrantz , L.A. Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, and IOC President Jaques Rogge. |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Saturday, February 18 marked the close of the 5th IOC Women and Sport World Conference. To say the very least: IT ROCKED! To say more: it was inspirational, powerful, and an exceptional conference. Days later, I am still covered in goosebumps realizing how incredible it was to be surrounded by diplomats, international foundation presidents, olympic gold medalists, national sportscasters and some of the most impressive women leaders in our world's history. The conference highlighted the growing leadership of women on and off the playing field. We heard stories of women who struggled just for the right to play sports and for the freedom to make a career in a man's world. Many women fought hard for the rights that we have today; to never second-guess our ability and rights to play sports and lead with integrity. I thank them for their bravery and ambition. I live through their honor having played EIGHT sports competively in my lifetime thus far.
In the London Olympic Games this summer, for the first time in Olympic history ALL sports will see the competition of both men and women. In fact, somewhere close to 45% of athletes competing this summer will be female. This is good right? Yep, but it needs to be 50%. It has been a long time coming, yet we still have more work to do.
In the "Women, Sport and Media" session, we were motivated by such outstanding females as Christine Brennan (USA Today, ABC News, CNN, NPR...this woman covers it al!) and Molly Solomon (Ms. boss-lady at NBC Universal, head producer of Olympic coverage). Ms. Solomon shared that the industry is still a man's territory in terms of top executives, but that the number of exceptionally talented women 'poised in middle-management' will soon lead to a great revolution. The discussion of women both on and off the camera was riveting.
I particularly enjoyed Molly Solomon's insight that storytelling is where the industry is headed; she shared a short video story of Cathy Freeman and her rise from a marginalized Aboriginal heritage to Australia's champion as a gold medalist in track and field. According to Solomon, she says "we need to present the Olympics in distintive ways, because the Olympics is about more than sports" (quoted during presentation, Feb. 18, 2012). That's right.
I am more enthusiastic than ever that I can create short film --in a storytelling fashion --that will be useful to promoting the Olympic movement, Olympic athletes, citizens of host cities, and people all around the globe.
Two final thoughts...
1. Women and Girls have every inate human right that men and boys have. So, give it your all! Be courageous, kind, and be a leader!
2. To both the women and men headed to London this summer, I'll be cheering for you.
GO TEAM USA!
Friday, February 17, 2012
IOC World Conference for Women and Sport - 5th Edition
Under the most incredible circumstances of fate, I am honored to be at the IOC World Women and Sport Conference.
I am celebrating the 40th birthday of Title IX among the most accomplished and fascinating people in international women's sports. Title IX was a powerful piece of US legislation calling for equality in sport --the direct reason why I had the immense opportunity to be an NCAA athlete in Rowing at the University of Louisville.
I've heard from so many powerful speakers today and have met so many exceptional people thus far --including Olympic gold medalist!
Ms. Ann Stock of the Department of State, Bureau of Education and Cultural Affairs, led a powerful presentation of the vision of our nation to connect people worldwide through peace, equality, and sports. I believe whole-heartedly in their mission of "smart power" and as a Fulbright Alumni Ambassador, I bare proof that one-by-one we can bridge mutual culture understanding globally through programs like the ones supported through the State Department.
Inspiration is everywhere at this conference. It's clear that women in sports create leadership. And as Roland Rich, director of the UN Democracy Fund, pointed out "we need to change the patriarchal nature of politics" (Conference presentation, Feb. 17, 2012). And, in doing so (especially through sports and civic empowerment) this femininity can bring less conflict, more listening and more creative political discussions in countries far and wide.
The exceptional message here at the 5th Annual IOC Women in Sport Conference in Los Angeles is: sports are a legacy for peace and understanding, and the progress of women in sports is a testament to modernity and hope.
I am celebrating the 40th birthday of Title IX among the most accomplished and fascinating people in international women's sports. Title IX was a powerful piece of US legislation calling for equality in sport --the direct reason why I had the immense opportunity to be an NCAA athlete in Rowing at the University of Louisville.
I've heard from so many powerful speakers today and have met so many exceptional people thus far --including Olympic gold medalist!
Ms. Ann Stock of the Department of State, Bureau of Education and Cultural Affairs, led a powerful presentation of the vision of our nation to connect people worldwide through peace, equality, and sports. I believe whole-heartedly in their mission of "smart power" and as a Fulbright Alumni Ambassador, I bare proof that one-by-one we can bridge mutual culture understanding globally through programs like the ones supported through the State Department.
Inspiration is everywhere at this conference. It's clear that women in sports create leadership. And as Roland Rich, director of the UN Democracy Fund, pointed out "we need to change the patriarchal nature of politics" (Conference presentation, Feb. 17, 2012). And, in doing so (especially through sports and civic empowerment) this femininity can bring less conflict, more listening and more creative political discussions in countries far and wide.
The exceptional message here at the 5th Annual IOC Women in Sport Conference in Los Angeles is: sports are a legacy for peace and understanding, and the progress of women in sports is a testament to modernity and hope.
Wednesday, February 15, 2012
Monday, February 13, 2012
Marlton Square Redevelopment -Los Angeles, CA
The Marlton Square redevelopment project has been drastically unsuccessful. TWO DISCLAIMERS: 1) there are many parties to blame, 2) although the CRA was involved, this happens to be one of the worst projects in their portfolio of otherwise useful community redevelopment projects. These events take place in Los Angeles, CA. Events like this happen throughout the world.
Where's the optimism you might ask? It's under the surface --distinctly relevant in the fact that if we can learn from and listen to one another, mistakes of the past don't have to be mistakes of the future.
PROJECT BACKGROUND:Former Businesses at Marlton Square prior to this project:
• Vons Grocery Store
• Two gas stations
• Clothing stores frequented by residents
• Barbershops
• African American Culture and Wax Museum
• Important community services, especially regarding the elderly.
TIMELINE
1980's
1984: Tom Bradley sought to reinvest in the aging Santa Barbara Plaza
1. Very little evidence of blight
2. Stores located there were economically viable and considered part of the community
3. Many community services and services for Senior Citizens.
1990's
1996: Magic Johnson's development firm wins rights to Marlton Square, after four years of attempting to assemble the entire project area. 36 property owners and 300 different businesses/tenants complicated the project.
1999: Despite Magic Johnson being a respected and established developer in the region, the Marlton Square project was given to Chris Hammond under the direction of City Councilman Mark Ridley-Thomas after Hammond claimed to be able to assemble the properties without the use of eminent domain.
2000's
2000: Chris Hammond of Capital Vision Equities outbids Magic Johnson and takes over project officially.
2004: Capital Vision Equities defaults
2004-2007: Chris Hammond and Capital Vision Equities bring in other equity partners including Jeff Lee of Lee Homes, Pacific Retail Trust, LNR Properties, and USC football star Keyshawn Johnson. These partners left and replaced one another over this span.
2007: Chris Hammond stops making payments to construction companies.
2010: Meta Housing receives $10 million in HUD and CRA funding and takes over project area ($8 million from HUD, $2 million from CRA)
2011-2012: Kaiser Permanente in negotiations with CRA to purchase Southern portion of property for the development of medical office buildings.
PROBLEMS:
• One local developer who chose to speak to the Sentinel on the grounds of anonymity said, "Hammond has screwed this deal up so bad that at this point no one wants to touch it as long as Hammond is around—Chris is just a bad guy, he cannot be trusted."
http://www.lasentinel.net/Marlton-Square-Nightmare.html
• City Controller Laura Chick warned against relying on Chris Hammond, who she felt had questionable creditworthiness and reliability, as well as a number of previously bounced checks. There are also copious lawsuits pending against Hammond for various reasons. Keyshawn Johnson, who was brought into the Marlton Square project quite late, is currently suing Hammond and his related companies.
• Those most affected by the redevelopment disaster are the residents and local business owners who relied on this commercial center. Loretta Jones, a representative from the non-profit "Healthy African American Families" stated, "Chris Hammond was a nightmare". "To date he still has not paid me all of my money, but because of a confidentiality agreement he made me sign I cannot tell you how much I agreed to relocate for or how much I still have not been paid."
http://www.lasentinel.net/Marlton-Square-Nightmare.html
SOLUTIONS:
The question remains: What is lined up at this point and how does it pencil? Why take a bid to demolish if there is no bid to develop? If another decade goes by without a feasible solution, crime will continue to rise near Marlton Square.
William Chun of the CRA referred to the destruction of the remaining units as, "the physical representation of progress." We feel that these buildings, despite their lack of use, would be heavily utilized if the surrounding conditions --such as sidewalks, green space, shade, and amenities --were improved. What the 1954 aerial photograph shows us is that many of the small businesses were in buildings which we estimate were built between 1960-1975. This leads us to two final thoughts:
1. These buildings were fully functional and structurally sound when the area was first designated for redevelopment.
2. Why not invest the money slated for demolition into small business loans, adaptive reuse of the existing structures, and a genuine investment in Marlton Square.
Where's the optimism you might ask? It's under the surface --distinctly relevant in the fact that if we can learn from and listen to one another, mistakes of the past don't have to be mistakes of the future.
PROJECT BACKGROUND:Former Businesses at Marlton Square prior to this project:
• Vons Grocery Store
• Two gas stations
• Clothing stores frequented by residents
• Barbershops
• African American Culture and Wax Museum
• Important community services, especially regarding the elderly.
TIMELINE
1980's
1984: Tom Bradley sought to reinvest in the aging Santa Barbara Plaza
1. Very little evidence of blight
2. Stores located there were economically viable and considered part of the community
3. Many community services and services for Senior Citizens.
1990's
1996: Magic Johnson's development firm wins rights to Marlton Square, after four years of attempting to assemble the entire project area. 36 property owners and 300 different businesses/tenants complicated the project.
1999: Despite Magic Johnson being a respected and established developer in the region, the Marlton Square project was given to Chris Hammond under the direction of City Councilman Mark Ridley-Thomas after Hammond claimed to be able to assemble the properties without the use of eminent domain.
2000's
2000: Chris Hammond of Capital Vision Equities outbids Magic Johnson and takes over project officially.
2004: Capital Vision Equities defaults
2004-2007: Chris Hammond and Capital Vision Equities bring in other equity partners including Jeff Lee of Lee Homes, Pacific Retail Trust, LNR Properties, and USC football star Keyshawn Johnson. These partners left and replaced one another over this span.
2007: Chris Hammond stops making payments to construction companies.
2010: Meta Housing receives $10 million in HUD and CRA funding and takes over project area ($8 million from HUD, $2 million from CRA)
2011-2012: Kaiser Permanente in negotiations with CRA to purchase Southern portion of property for the development of medical office buildings.
PROBLEMS:
• One local developer who chose to speak to the Sentinel on the grounds of anonymity said, "Hammond has screwed this deal up so bad that at this point no one wants to touch it as long as Hammond is around—Chris is just a bad guy, he cannot be trusted."
http://www.lasentinel.net/Marlton-Square-Nightmare.html
• City Controller Laura Chick warned against relying on Chris Hammond, who she felt had questionable creditworthiness and reliability, as well as a number of previously bounced checks. There are also copious lawsuits pending against Hammond for various reasons. Keyshawn Johnson, who was brought into the Marlton Square project quite late, is currently suing Hammond and his related companies.
• Those most affected by the redevelopment disaster are the residents and local business owners who relied on this commercial center. Loretta Jones, a representative from the non-profit "Healthy African American Families" stated, "Chris Hammond was a nightmare". "To date he still has not paid me all of my money, but because of a confidentiality agreement he made me sign I cannot tell you how much I agreed to relocate for or how much I still have not been paid."
http://www.lasentinel.net/Marlton-Square-Nightmare.html
SOLUTIONS:
The question remains: What is lined up at this point and how does it pencil? Why take a bid to demolish if there is no bid to develop? If another decade goes by without a feasible solution, crime will continue to rise near Marlton Square.
William Chun of the CRA referred to the destruction of the remaining units as, "the physical representation of progress." We feel that these buildings, despite their lack of use, would be heavily utilized if the surrounding conditions --such as sidewalks, green space, shade, and amenities --were improved. What the 1954 aerial photograph shows us is that many of the small businesses were in buildings which we estimate were built between 1960-1975. This leads us to two final thoughts:
1. These buildings were fully functional and structurally sound when the area was first designated for redevelopment.
2. Why not invest the money slated for demolition into small business loans, adaptive reuse of the existing structures, and a genuine investment in Marlton Square.
Wednesday, February 8, 2012
Saturday, February 4, 2012
Westlake, Los Angeles
Dear mom and dad,
I made this website for a class project in History of Planning, with David Sloane, Ph.D. Thought you might enjoy it. I love you.
I made this website for a class project in History of Planning, with David Sloane, Ph.D. Thought you might enjoy it. I love you.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)