City calms fears of some regarding proposed redevelopment district

Brenda Snow is among those who on Tuesday left the city’s second redevelopment district meeting feeling “a little more comfortable” with a proposal that would deem her family’s home, along with much of Maricopa, a blighted slum.

That’s because, in part, Councilman Will Dunn repeatedly stated that whatever happens, the citizens most directly affected by any districting will have a say in how future plans move forward.

Brenda Snow and her husband Kevin Snow have lived in a slump block home on Fred Cole Lane for nearly 10 years (see “Proposed redevelopment district raises eyebrows, questions”). They, along with about 200 landowners whose parcels fall within the proposed redevelopment district’s boundaries, received letters from the city in late December inviting them to the first public input meeting held Jan. 8 at City Hall.

They attended both meetings, the Snows said, but felt the city’s initial answers lacked depth. On Tuesday, the reasons behind the city’s proposal were more understandable.

“If there are grants available to help us improve our area and we have a say in it, we are agreeable to that,” Brenda Snow said.

A redevelopment district is a legal designation designed to make areas in need of assistance eligible for grants from a variety of sources. Creating one requires public notification and input.

Many of Dunn’s comments appeared to have been better received and more calming than city staffer Danielle Casey’s carefully prepared slide presentation.

“Do we want street lights, or don’t we? Do we want sidewalks, or maybe we don’t,” Dunn said addressing the packed meeting room at the Global Water Facility during the question-and-answer session.

Dunn stressed those whose fears were based on the city’s power to establish eminent domain to seize property and relocate those who live there were misdirected if they were connecting them to the proposal to create a redevelopment district.

“We can already do that,” he said.

What the city can’t do, Dunn said, is to move forward to create any plans to improve the area that would require funding from a host of available grants to areas in need.

“Right now, we have no plan and we can do nothing,” he said, because State statute requires the formation of the redevelopment district to occur first. “Really, all this is is a plan.”

In addition, private consultant Bob Logan and Casey, who both spoke on behalf of the city, clarified that the overall district could be broken down by neighborhood into several districts, each with its own, distinct plan. That way, each group of citizens would be able to craft and approve – or turn down – any plan for their immediate surroundings.

Logan has worked with other Arizona cities regarding redevelopment including Casa Grande, Coolidge, Phoenix and more. He is on hand to keep the process legal and on track, Casey said.

As might be expected, opinion for and against the proposed redevelopment district varied greatly among those in attendance.

Longtime Maricopa resident Paula Kellogg represented one extreme.

“What if we don’t want sewers, we don’t want sidewalks, we just want to be left alone,” she said. “Can we vote ourselves out of the city?”

Lucy Rodriguez said she was more open to possibilities even though the location of her residence has now become somewhat of a joke at work.

“If someone asks ‘What neighborhood do you live in?”, I tell them, ‘I’m with the slum and blight,'” the 40-year Maricopa resident said.

“I want sidewalks. I want sewers,” Rodriguez explained. “I just don’t want everybody to live in fear that they are going to lose their home.”

The best way to do that, she said, is to keep everyone informed.

Kevin Snow said he also favored better communication and that if the city had simply stated its intentions in the beginning, a lot of tension might have been avoided.

“I think there would have been a better way to present it than two days before Christmas getting a letter stating ‘You are in a slum and blighted area,'” Kevin Snow said.

In hindsight, Dunn said he agreed.

“I think a lot of times it’s like every time we turn a corner in the development of Maricopa we are learning what we shouldn’t do next time, and we are getting better at it,” he said. “The problem is the letter didn’t really explain what we are doing. We did what the State statute said.”

Photo by RuthAnn Hogue