...When All is Said and Dunn

I tried to keep it off my mind, but it just keeps creeping back. During all the hoopla I tried to remain impartial and keep an open mind, while all of the parties involved seemed to be losing theirs. I am, of course, talking about the great Temple City redevelopment debate that has now come and gone.

It took me a couple of weeks to chew on the outcome and how badly it was handled by all of those who participated in this circus, homeowners and city councilpersons alike. But one thing is for certain, there were no winners, only losers.

Yeah, I’m sure that the few overzealous homeowners felt victorious in their misguided and misinformed march to the council chambers. But the blind leading the blind will always lose their way.

As was pointed out in a very astute letter to the editor by Julie Byers, these people were off the mark from the very beginning. If they had bothered to think about it, did they really believe that the coffers of the city budget could afford to do what they were assuming they were planning? Buy 54 homes at $200,000 or more a piece? If even one of these homeowners had even bothered to ask, they would have found out that the city could never afford this.

But what kind of fun would an angry mob be if they were informed. Why should Temple City have the first rational mob in history? If they were logical and rational that wouldn’t make good TV, which the person who tipped off KABC Channel 7 about the city council meeting must have alluded to. Yeah, come on down! We have some bad blood a brewing over here in Temple City and we want all of Southern California to see it.

In the homeowners’ defense, if it was my home on the line and I wanted to remain here, I would have been concerned enough to make my voice be heard. I would do what I could to make sure it didn’t happen, if it were true. But unlike most involved, I would have done some serious investigation and made sure I had all the facts before lighting my torch and marching towards Castle Frankenstein.

Now to the city council and their “infinite wisdom” and continued tunnel vision. I certainly hope that the two new councilmen have the ability to think outside of the box and not fall victim to the same old tired rhetoric. The tired rhetoric that has been the city council's modus operandi for the past few years since the scourge of non-tax generating businesses decided to settle in the downtown area. If I lost you there for a second, please let me decipher it for you. That means since every bridal shop in the known universe descended on Temple City.

In the April 16, 1999 edition of this paper, I gave some suggestions that many people came to me and said “What a great idea! Why doesn’t the city council and the planning commission do something like that?” My response is always the same “All I can do is suggest it.” I am assuming that the council members must have been on vacation or didn’t read the paper that week so I will try suggesting it once again.

The city council looks at the downtown area and all they see is small shops and limited parking, so the best they can come up with is tear it down and start again. Why not work within the parameters of what we have and come up with something unique and different. Approach known retailers and food merchants with a plan to make mini versions of their outlets within the existing spaces. This is not a new concept; it’s done all the time. Take a drive to the corner of San Gabriel Boulevard and Huntington Drive and look at what they did with the old Woody & Eddy’s restaurant property. There are 3 small businesses in the old structure, a bagel shop, a Subway and a Baskin-Robbins. Why not do the same thing to downtown Temple City?

These mini versions will help maintain that “hometown” feel. If more space is needed, go up one level not back. But only one level up and no more. Again, we want to maintain that small town feel. In addition, just think of all the extra employment we would have for all the teenagers. It’s a win-win situation.

Concerned about parking. All we need to do is restructure existing parking areas by removing excess foliage and walls to accommodate more cars. Reduce the size of the spaces, hey Ralph’s did it when they refinished their parking lot. By the way, just how much parking do you think we are going to need? Just like any small town if the spaces are filled, park on the street. This entire area is not that big to begin with. If the businesses are smaller there is only so much traffic they are going to generate anyway.

If you want to use eminent domain, start by commandeering any empty lots adjacent to the downtown area. How about taking over any properties not generating tax revenue for the city and replacing them with ones that do. Instead of forcing someone to sell their property, how about just asking? I’m sure that there are some of those homeowners who want to get out of this town. Take it where you can get it. It may not look as pretty on paper, but who is to say it wouldn’t work.

Believe me, if something is not done and done soon it’s not going to be a matter of who is willing to sell their property, but how many want to, once the entire area becomes a run down bridal and nail shop slum. That sounds like the kind of place I’m sure every homeowner would want to live a block from.

One last word to the wise to the members of the city council: try to come up with a different term than "redevelopment" when discussing any future plans. I think the torches are still a little warm.

The Shrub Speaks: “First, we would not accept a treaty that would not have been ratified, nor a treaty that I thought made sense for the country.” - On the Kyoto accord, to the Washington Post, April 24, 2001