Foothills Sentry February 2023

Foothills Sentry Page 4 February 2023 JOHNSON MOTORCARS 31 Years of Specializing in the Service and Repair of Mercedes-Benz Gary Johnson 714-997-2567 982 N. Batavia # B13, Orange, CA 92867 gary@johnsonmotorcars.com @ ramblingroseoc COLOR Guest Commentaries Why is Sears holding Orange neighborhoods hostage? By Kathy Tavoularis Property rights are a corner- stone of the American way of life – foundational to the enduring system of ordered liberty from which our prosperity and quality of life flow. But with rights come responsi- bilities. When those are ignored, the community suffers. That is the situation in Orange, where the indifference and neglect of an ab- sentee venture capitalist is bring- ing blight and crime to the door- steps of his longtime neighbors. The Orange Mall, as it was known for decades, was the heart- beat of north Orange. However, like shopping malls across the country, the online retail revolu- tion has spurred the once-bustling Mall into a steady decline. For the families living in the adjacent neighborhoods, the qual- ity-of-life impacts have become increasingly worse since the April 2021 closure of the Sears store, the lone remaining anchor store from the mall’s opening in 1971. Sears is owned by Transform- co, which in turn is owned by ESL Investment, a hedge fund owned by Edward Lampert from Con- necticut. During Lampert’s tenure as Sears president and CEO in the 2010s, the company lost half its value and closed half of its stores. Lampert controls the Sears prop- erty through a 90-year lease that continues through 2054. The closure of Sears at the mall is the primary source of the grow- ing blight that is impacting sur- rounding neighborhoods. Lam- pert has every right to take steps he deems necessary to ensure Sears’ profitability, but that does not relieve him of the responsibil- ity to be a good neighbor. Instead, Lampert has allowed the parking lot between the vacant store and the adjacent residential neighborhoods to become a mag- net of derelict vehicles, criminal activity and homelessness. There is a constant barrage of calls for police and code enforcement services, including numerous attempts to break into the aban- doned store, domestic violence calls, reckless driving incidents and calls to check on suspicious people, activity and vehicles. Hu- man feces have been found in the parking lot. And it is only getting worse. I attended Taft Elementary and Peralta Junior High across the street from the mall. My first job, at 16, was at this Sears in the Or- ange Mall. Now, as the Council- member representing this area on the Orange City Council, I under- stand and share the frustration of residents who bombard City Hall with pleas for help. Lampert’s contempt is directed not only at his neighbors, but the City of Or- ange, which has remained a long- time partner until recently, and even his landlords. City staff – at all levels – have called Lampert and his invest- ment fund numerous times in order to bring these issues to his attention and demand that he take steps to rectify them, but are met with a stone wall of silence from the Connecticut resident. The longtime Orange family who owns the land has implored Lampert to clean up his act and behave as a responsible neighbor. Lampert sends them a lease pay- ment every month, but otherwise ignores them. Sears intends to collect lease payments from its tenants until 2054. Orange resi- dents should not be required to live with this blight until then. Every other stakeholder wants to revitalize the mall site. The Villages at Orange owner, and the owners of the other parcels that comprise the entire mall properties, are supportive of re- developing the Mall as a thriving economic and community asset that complements surrounding neighborhoods and elevates our residents’ quality of life. I applaud them for their effort, and offer my assistance to find a balanced approach that protects our neighborhoods while also stimulating economic growth. Unfortunately, Edward Lampert’s neglect of the Sears property and indifference to how these impacts are harming his neighbors are a huge obstacle to reinvigorating the mall site. He is effectively holding our community progress hostage while degrading the qual- ity of life for those residents who, live, work or play near the mall. Not only that, but his irrespon- sible behavior reflects badly on each of the property owners and businesses that go to lengths to be good neighbors. As the City Councilmember of the district in which the Village shopping center is located, and as a 41-year Orange resident, I view this matter with the utmost seriousness and pledge contin- ued action on behalf of residents. The first step toward solving a problem is holding Sears and Mr. Lampert accountable. And it is past time we, as a community, call out and name the source of the blight taking root in Orange, at the Sears property: Edward Lam- pert of Connecticut. Be the part- ner to Orange that Sears was for more than half a century. There is an opportunity for you to win, and the neighborhoods to win, and increase everyone’s property values and quality of life. Kathy Tavoularis represents District 3 on the Orange City Council. Village mall redevelopment needs the right solution By Doug Hamilton The topic of the Village at Or- ange/Orange Mall and the North Tustin Street Corridor involves many complex issues and a de- cade-long history of community involvement. Picking the wrong solution has the potential for negative consequences. Respon- sible decisions and reasonable compromise are necessary to get to a "yes" solution, and ultimately that’s a win-win for everyone. The original North Tustin Street Specific Plan (NTSSP) allowed 4-5 story high-density dwelling units and high-density zoning changes on many proper- ties from Katella to Lincoln. The NTSSP had the potential to un- dermine the city’s sales tax rev- enue by rezoning commercial re- tail properties for housing. It also would have been a disaster for the area’s quality of life. Progress was made when the city council voted to end the NTSSP, AB2011 now puts that progress at risk. The law creates new op- tions for property owners at the mall. Understanding the new law before digging in on a “yes” or “no” housing position is critically important. Keep in mind a “no compromise” position most likely equals “no resolution.” AB2011 was designed to de- velop a larger pool of skilled construction labor, in addition to the production of “affordable” housing units. With AB2011, the state takes away local control that might prevent high-density hous- ing. In other words, prior city zoning restrictions and a "hell no" attitude won't work after July 1. AB2011 brings 4-5 story high- density affordable housing back into the mix of possibilities at the mall. The law gives qualify- ing property owners a pathway to move forward without com- promise. As a result, residents and the city may have no ability to stop high-density housing, re- gardless of the negative impacts. The consequences could be dev- astating to the city’s sales tax rev- enue and the quality of life in the surrounding neighborhoods. So how does AB2011 affect the mall? The former JCPenney/ Integral Communities property does not appear to qualify. The property lacks frontage on a cor- ridor street. Only Tustin Street qualifies as a corridor because it measures at least 70 feet wide. The TRC property on the mall’s east side does not appear to qual- ify for AB2011 “mixed-income” housing because the site is larger than 20 acres. However, the prop- erty appears to qualify for 100% affordable housing because it has 50 feet of corridor street frontage. The former Sears property presents the greatest risk for neg- ative consequences. It appears to qualify for both AB2011 “mixed- income” and “100% affordable” housing. The property is less than 20 acres and has more than 50 feet of frontage on a corridor street. The highest bidders for this site will, most likely, be develop- ers with their eye on 4-5 story high-density housing. AB2011 requires that construc- tion be done with skilled labor and imposes unfavorable deed restrictions that last for 45-55 years. It may not be an option that developers actually want to initiate, unless they plan to use the “threat” of AB2011 as a bar- gaining chip. If they want to use AB2011, they will have that right. However, under no circumstanc- es should our city council strike a grand bargain and trade threats of “mixed-income” or “100% affordable” housing for a more profitable and superior mixed-use zoning upgrade. Doing so would allow developers to avoid the use of skilled tradesmen, avoid unfa- vorable deed restrictions and in- crease their profit with an ability to charge market rate rents. We recommend a stated doc- trine that “our city will not up- grade zoning with AB2011 or other similar threats.” When developers purchase property in Orange, they must follow the General Plan. Once the city coun- cil buckles under, even one time with AB2011 compromises, a precedent will be set. And that precedent will be exploited by other developers. The community supports rede- velopment and re-visioning at the mall. However, each project has a direct impact on others. These projects must be considered as a whole, and require related infra- structure improvements. Because of the complexities, redevelop- ment should be done with a Spe- cific Plan just for the mall. The city could disallow uses no lon- ger appropriate for the area. The Plan could then include new zon- ing and a streamlined entitlement process. No projects should be approved without a comprehen- sive Specific Plan that addresses all foreseeable issues. Doug Hamilton is a third gen- eration Orange resident; Doug and son Matt are co-founders of the North Tustin Street Preserva- tion Group. Sign of the times Dear Editor: For many years, I have happily looked forward to receiving and reading the local happenings. I am noticing that your paper has taken a move to a more political stance. Your letters to editor posts have become littered with uncivil posts that tend to defame other residents who oppose their po- sition. I don’t think these letters best serve the spirit of our city. Tom Wills Orange Barrio brush-off? Dear Editor: The following was sent to HUD Field Representative, Eu- nice Cho: We in the El Modena Barrio are requesting HUD to investi- gate the City of Orange CDBG (Community Development Block Grant) Program for fraud, waste, abuse and discrimination. The El Modena Barrio has been a poverty pocket since the 1940s, and has been on the CDBG map for the last 50 years. Now the city has moved the El Modena Bar- rio out of the CDBG map, and excluded the community from re- ceiving any federal funds. We believe the Barrio was ex- cluded after Councilwoman Ana Gutierrez was elected in District 5, against the wishes of the past city council who retaliated by excluding the El Modena Barrio from the CDBG map. Also, in the last 20 years, CDBG monies have not been spent in the El Modena Barrio, and federal monies have been allocated to special interests in the city. We are asking HUD/CDBG to provide oversight and transpar- ency to ensure that federal mon- ies allocated to the City of Orange are spent in accordance to HUD guidelines and procedures. We believe the City of Orange has vi- olated the rights of the El Modena Barrio by denying the community access to federal money designed to help the poor and disadvan- taged. We ask for fairness and justice in this request for an in- vestigation. Sammy Rodriguez Orange Dirty densing Dear Editor: In the January Foothills Sentry, I read and reread the letter to the editor about Village Mall hous- ing. I agree with all the writer said except that he’d rather have high-density near his home than