AgdaPkt 2005-09-26 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

9� i.z Investigation After receiving several written complaints, the Grand Jury conducted interviews with personnel from the Redwood City Community Development Services Department and with some of the property owners displaced by the project. In addition, the Grand Jury noted several articles and letters to the editor appearing in local newspapers that were critical of the manner in which the RDA exercised the power of eminent domain. Findings Organization of the City Council and RDA The City Council of Redwood City sits as the RDA Board, a dual role that is a common practice for California cities. T'he RDA staff deals with planning, finding suitaUle developers for a redevelopment project, preparing the redevelopment justification, negotiating with property owners, and relocation. The City Council is the highest level of appeal for grievances held by city residents. Because the City Council of Redwood City serves as the RDA board of directors, there is no independent body to which a property owner or resident can complain about actions of the RDA in offering fair market value for property. This dual role of the City Council as the RDA projects an apparent conflict of interest. Treatment of Affected Property Owners in the Retail/Cinema Project Although two years have passed since the eminent domain proceedings and purchase negotiations, the Grand Jury found that the citizens still felt bruised enough by the experience to express their resentment somewhat emotionally. They felt that they had not been treated with respect and that they had been mistreated both by the time delays of the proceedings as well as by the intense pressure that was placed on them to settle. In one case, the property owners were elderly and were very upset by the behavior of the RDA negotiators who showed up at their doorstep without notifying their attorney as had been requested. Because the Redevelopment Agency is, in reality, the Redwood City Council wearing different hats, there was nobody in the city government to whom they could appeal to relieve the intensity of the RDA pressure. Another property owner was forced to spend $75,000 on appraisers and legal fees before the city, after a protracted period of time, finally raised t�eir offer by 31% to $1,130,000. The representatives of the RDA walked out of court-required mediation and did not settle until the final court hearing. 'This property owner felt that the RDA had needlessly prolonged the negotiations so that the property owner would have to incur extra legal and appraisal expenses, and therefore be more willing to settle for the RDA's terms. The fact that the City did finally agree to settle for a higher market price should not have prompted the City Manager to verbally insult the property owner. 4 _ _ _