AgdaPkt 2005-09-26 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

� 9,8-�3 Conclusions The Redwood City Redevelopment Agency did not provide fair and equitable treatrnent to the property owners who were evicted by the Retail/Cinema Complex development project. The RDA forced properly owners to settle at the lowest possible price by employing delaying tactics and verUal coercion. The Grand Jury is of the opinion that in using these techniques, the Redwood City RDA imposed an emotional and financial hardship on the affected property owners. Because the City Council of Redwood City serves also as the RDA Board of Directors, there is no independent body to which a properiy owner can file grievances about actions of the RDA in offering fair market value for property. This dual role of the City Council as the RDA Board projects an apparent conflict of interest. Recommendations The Redwood City Council should: 1. Direct the Redevelopment Agency to develop written guidelines for its staff on proper treatment of citizens, and conduct training sessions to acquaint the staff with the contents of these guidelines (staff should be made aware of California Government Code Section 7260.5(b) concerning treatment of the public). 2. Set up a mechanism for dealing with citizen complaints concerning the Redevelopment Agency, such as: ' a) Appoint a RDA Ombudsman familiar with the statutory duties and rights of the property owners who will actively seek out persons affected by RDA actions to insure that they are being fairly treated. The RDA Ombudsman would report periodically to the City Council; or alternatively, b) Designate a member of the City Council as the point person for complaints concerning the RDA. This member, familiar with the statutory duties and rights of the property owners, would seek appropriate remedies and report back to the City Council concerning required actions. 5 _ __