Dateline: Huntington Beach, California
(The
following in my personal opinion and is presented here for your
information only. It is not intended to render any specific
and/or legal advice, nor to disparage, slander, and/or libel
any person and/or organization.)
On
Cable TV, in print media and as a basic benevolence crusade
performance, Huntington Beach officials have gathered around
the old Huntington Beach Inn during its demolition. Present
were Robert Mayers (the developer), Steve Bone (the developers'
right-hand-man), Mayor Shirley Dettloff and select members of
our City Council. While TV cameras rolled and photographers
snapped artful poses, these public officials socked up all the
publicity available. The setting was seemingly appropriate for
the old adage, "out with the old, in with the new."
The
old vacant Huntington Beach Inn was being torn down for the
Waterfront Resort expansion. Adding to the already existing
Hilton Hotel, with its 300 rooms, will now be another 530 rooms,
a 52,000 sq.ft. conference/convention center, an indoor sports/gym
complex, additional restaurants, gift stores, boutiques, and
of course more bars and lounges. One argument, I raised three
(3) times, but to no avail, was according to all proven numbers,
this entire project will be underparked - that is, not enough
parking to fulfill all requirements. My concerns were met with
"all objections are hereby overruled", by this very Council,
at the public meeting approval process. (I didn't know they
could do that). However, time will tell.
Yet,
at this so-called dedication/demolition process of the old Huntington
Beach Inn, everyone, in one form or another, made what they
felt were appropriate comments during the destruction of this
old decaying building. The building has purposely been vacant
and left in a decayed state for years, while the developer and
City ironed out plans to expand the present Waterfront Hilton
Resort project. Yet, just as disheartening were most of the
comments made by these public officials.
Much
reference was given to the old days when this building was once
active. Some even pointed out how sad it was to see such a monument
of Huntington Beach for over 35 years being torn-down, even
though making way for the new. Reference was also given to its
time as a viable Inn, with restaurants, shops, conference center,
bars, and lounges. (Actually, isn't that what they're going
to build now)? Anyway, the whole apparent publicity stunt was
aimed at helping to improve our community, but only at the expense
of removing, an (now) old eyesore - so we're told.
But
not once did the cameras pan back to the background. Not once
did any public official or developer make any type reference
at all to the large residential community, a mobile home park,
right in back of this old Huntington Beach Inn, and also to
be torn-down at the same time. Yet, this low-income community
is simple making way, not so much for the Waterfront Resort
expansion itself, but mainly for a far more affluent residential
development to be built as part of this entire Waterfront Resort
project. Even the scale model built to outline this expansion
project, is mysteriously void of any reference at all to this
new residential area.
Therefore,
is it a bit embarrassing for these officials to admit, and especially
show, that simply one form of income level residents are being
replaced by a considerably more affluent type? Are they finally
saying, "this land is just too good for you?" Talk has been
circulated for years, that this entire land (Huntington Beach
Inn & residential community/mobile home park) is needed
for the Waterfront Resort expansion project. Not true! Only
about 15% of the residential area is actually required for this
hotel expansion project, the rest is to be rebuild as affluent
residential. How can they justify this sad transgression towards
their fellow man? Yet, that answer is simply! We're dealing
with a developer and public officials.
In
this particular case, the developer and City are simply joint
partners. The City owns the land, who gave it to the developer
to turn it into a higher use. But remember, the term "higher
and better use" is not an official development category, just
a "wish-list" real estate term for making more money. The City
wants the tax revenue the hotels generate and the developer
makes his money from residential development. Therefore, we
had a "done deal" long ago, and apparently no matter at whose
expense.
How
can this be justified? Easy, in my opinion! For the developer
and City will simply point out that they are not really eliminating
an existing residential community, but a mobile home park. To
their way of thinking, this is justified! After all, their "mobile"
are kind of a temporary use of the land anyway. Besides, this
area was claimed a "Blight" long ago under the Huntington Beach
Redevelopment statues.
Nothing
could be further from the truth as I see it. The mobile home
park is indeed today what one would consider a "Blight," but
not originally. The City and developer have simply put these
people through a living "Hell" for 9-years, turning a thriving,
resourceful, and beautiful community into one with bulldozers
aimed at their backyards. The promise of a replacement mobile
home park was not kept. Their existing park was originally and
legally claimed a "Blight" to begin with because the City simply
owns the land, and was considering only "Economic "Blight."
In other words, they could make more money with something else
on that land. And in this case, it is simply another residential
community, but now for the rich. The City does try to help justify
their actions by pointing out that the existing residents are
being paid for their homes. But, they are being "bought out",
not relocated. Where can they go how? What house (even manufactured)
can they possibly get for the amounts they are given in a comparable
area? Doesn't is appear that the law states that displaced people
in a redevelopment area are to be relocated on an "equal" basis?
Why is this not happening? And this has been going on for 9-years
on a lottery type basis, leaving everyone else with a big cloud
over his or her heads. I could go on, but this is already a
"done deal."
I
simply wanted to point out the truth behind the headlines, the
residential area hidden behind the cameras and the words left
out of the City's and developers' comments. Doesn't the government,
who gave millions of dollars towards this project because of
the jobs it will supposedly create, realize that these low-end
positions are mainly slated for those living outside our City
boundaries. By simply eliminating a whole low-income residential
community to build the project in the first place, who is going
to believe that they are now going to include any low-income
units to house these or any other employees anywhere close to
this project.
Driftwood
Mobile Home Park
This
article was written by myself quit a number of years ago now,
and indeed the Hyatt Resort and Spa is now in full operation.
The expensive housing condos ($1,000,000+ each) are also complete
now. Unfortunately, the mobile home park (Driftwood) discussed
in the original article is now long gone, along with any trace
or whereabouts of the former residents. It was as if the mobile
home park had never been there to begin with.
Living in a similar mobile home park, right next to the once
Driftwood Mobile Home Park, does not give me any assurance.
The Waterfront Resort Project, now with the Hilton and Hyatt
Hotels is all but complete. However, now another new development
looms in our very shadow - and that is Pacific City. Is this
ultimately to be a similar type project, again at the expense
of another mobile home park - ours?? Only time will tell.
However, you can almost bet, when the time comes for the City's
and developers press release, you can almost bet that any publicity
photo shots, will be taken at an angle as not to show any mobile
home park in the background.)
Disclosure...
