A few ideas about Los Angeles River redevelopment

The Daily News today writes about the plans by the cities of Glendale and Los Angeles to develop the Glendale Narrows portion of the Los Angeles River. Officials with Los Angeles’ Community Redevelopment Agency provided some more information about what they have in mind as they work on the  Northeast Los Angeles River Study Area, a proposed redevelopment zone that would include portions of Atwater, Cypress Park, Elysian Valley and Glassell Park.  “Green” jobs and more housing are included in the mix, the story said:

Allison Becker, an associate planner at the CRA, said officials aspire to create jobs by attracting environmentally friendly businesses to the area’s industrial and commercial sector. “Preserving the industrial area is a key aspect of our plan,” Becker said. The plan also includes low-density residential projects, transportation centers and a food hub, where region’s farmers could distribute their goods.

Agency workers are holding community meetings to gather more information and opinions from residents and business owners.   The CRA staff is scheduled to present a report on the feasibility of creating a Northeast redevelopment zone to City Planning Commission and City Council next year.

Related posts:


  1. Did Ms. Becker also tell people that their homes and businesses can be simply taken by Kelo eminent domain and given to some friend of the councilman?

    Did she explain that all the incremental property taxes will stop going to the City’s general fund and will be diverted to benefit the billionaire developer, leaving the community with less fire protection and closed libraries?

    Did she explain that the CRA plans to give financial aid to the new businesses to compete with established businesses in the area?

    Isn’t it time that the government stopped taking our homes and businesses and giving them to some crony so he can make all the money? Then to add insult to injury, the CRA wants to give more tax payer dollars to help the new business compete with established businesses.

  2. Well, before we go all NIMBY, let us consider that this CRA proposal seems to suggest how Los Angeles (with Glendale) plans to pay for the revitilization of the Los Angeles River, which will provide all of Los Angeles (and Glendale) more green spaces and a restored river. Here’s an excerpt from a CRA board memo from June 2009:
    “Since its inception in early 2002, the CRA/LA has been an active participant on the City Department Task Force on the Los Angeles River. CRA/LA staff, through its involvement with the Task Force, the creation of the LA River Master Plan, and the City Planning-initiated RIO specific plan, is aware of the significant planning and visioning work that has been accomplished by the residents, businesses and other stakeholders of river-adjacent communities in North East Los Angeles. However, while the LA River Master Plan identifies
    several key revitalization goals and projects within the “Glendale Narrows” portion of the River, the City of Los Angeles, on its own, has a limited set of economic tools and limited staff resources to orchestrate significant redevelopment and revitalization projects.
    This limitation is very evident at the common boundaries between the City of Glendale and Los Angeles…the adjacent areas within the City of Los Angeles have lagged behind many other areas of the City in terms of attracting private re-investment.
    Last fall, CRA/LA staff was asked by area constituents and stakeholders to undertake studies to determine the feasibility of adopting a redevelopment program to support community
    revitalization efforts along and near the Los Angeles River in North East Los Angeles.”
    At the very least, there’s more here at stake than some reflexively anti-government rhetoric would indicate. Here’s the Master Plan for the river (http://www.lariverrmp.org/) and here’s the CRA/LA site, which explains the project in detail (http://www.crala.org/internet-site/Projects/East_Hollywood/NELA.cfm)

  3. You tell ’em Scott.

  4. Getting the river cleaned up is basically that, while addressing the blight or perceived blight in Glassell Park has little to do with running water.

    To be clear, both are noble goals, but the proposed area and the goal of focusing on the river appear to be out of sync.

    There are systemic issues in the area that are unlikely to be solved by eminent domain-ing some of the more run-down areas into mediocre mixed use townhomes with a Pinkberry on the ground floor.

  5. Scott is correct. The CRA is not a good thing. Hopefully Gov. Brown will put an end to them.

    City services should be serviced by the city. We do not need the CRA.

Post a Comment

Please keep your comments civil and on topic and refrain from personal attacks. The moderator reserves the right to edit or delete any comments. The Eastsider's Terms of Use and Privacy Policy apply to comments submitted by readers. Required fields are marked *