Residents oppose city tearing down house
By Sylvie Belmond belmond@theacorn.com

SYLVIE BELMOND/Acorn Newspapers DOWNTOWN CHARACTER- Melinda Gibson and Will Whitaker take a last look at a house on Charles Street that is slated for demolition soon. The downtown resident and local business owner both oppose the Moorpark Redevelopment Agency's plans to destroy the structure to replace it with a new home.

As a truck pulled into the driveway of a small two-bedroom home at 81 Charles Street to remove asbestos in preparation for demolition slated to take place next week, two neighbors stood on the sidewalk expressing their concerns about the Moorpark Redevelopment Agency's activities.

"It's likely they'll leave the lot open. I don't like it at all," said Melinda Gibson, who lives next door to the house that was purchased by the agency about four years ago.

The city recently cut down a redwood tree that was in the backyard of the property, and now the area looks desolate, she said, as she peeked through a window to see what was left inside the home, which has been vacant for the past two years.

Instead of preserving the character of downtown Moorpark, the agency appears to be eradicating it bit by bit, according to others in the neighborhood.

"It seems the city is making all the wrong moves in Moorpark," said Arthur Burghardt, who lives across the street from the property targeted for destruction.

"Downtown Moorpark is a quaint, beautiful old area with a sense of settled quality and they're doing things to destroy the heart of it," he said.

Burghardt said the spirit of the downtown area is "being squeezed like an orange." Instead of destroying things, the city could do wonders with what's here already, he said.

Will Whitaker, a downtown activist who owns a business on High Street, also believes the house is worth saving. "Dealing with environmental concerns is cheaper than demolishing and rebuilding," he said.

The city has already lost at least $30,000 in rent in the last two years because it hasn't fixed the property to make it habitable, Whitaker said.

The agency is causing blight by creating empty lots in downtown Moorpark, said Whitaker, who serves on the Project Area Committee that successfully opposed a proposal to reinstate eminent domain authority over the old portion of town.

"Our big problem is that they are creating vacant lots, and to them (the agency) it's blight," he said.

According to David Moe, redevelopment agency manager for Moorpark, the house must be destroyed because asbestos and mold problems make it uninhabitable.

"If we rented this as is, someone could get sick," Moe said.

The agency has considered several options for the house on Charles Street, including rehabilitation of the existing structure, expanding the home with an extra master suite and entirely rebuilding the house from scratch.

Adding an extra bedroom would have cost $350,000, Moe said.

It doesn't make financial sense for the agency to use its resources to fix up an old house that is scheduled for demolition because it may not be able to recover the expenditures, Moe said.

Funds used to buy the house, which cost more than $330,000, have strings attached that limit the amount of rent the agency can charge tenants, he added.

"That structure just couldn't be saved," said Councilmember Janice Parvin. "I understand the concerns of residents, and we'll try to get new housing in that area as quickly as we can," she said. "In the meantime there will be additional patrolling to make sure the lot is not used for unsafe activities."

"The agency bought the home when it was on the market with the intent to rehabilitate it and assist a low-income family with housing," said Mayor Patrick Hunter.

However, after it was purchased, the agency found it wasn't cost effective to rehabilitate the 50-year-old house because it would cost more than $100,000 to make suitable improvements to place a family there, he said.

The agency explored various options and decided that building a new house was the best choice.

"It's much more cost effective to do this," Hunter said.

In regard to concerns about vacant lots, Hunter said there's no other way to accomplish the city's goal of providing additional safe, suitable housing for low-income families.

"When you tear down a home, you're going to have a vacant lot for a period of time, but it's preferable to a vacant and unsafe home that is also attracting nuisances," he said.

The agency is working to minimize the period of time the Charles Street lot will be vacant. Also, the home built to replace the one being demolished will be compatible with the existing neighborhood, Hunter said.

Other nearby redevelopment agency projects, including a condo development at 450 and 460 Charles Street, are underway to replace dilapidated buildings.

The structures currently on that oneacre site, which is adjacent to the 81 Charles Street property, will be removed by the end of March. However, buildings along Moorpark Avenue will remain until construction plans are completed, said Moe, adding it takes about two to three years to assemble such projects.

If everything goes according to plan, construction on 26 new condos will begin this fall, Moe said.

"The agency is trying to enhance the character of downtown, not destroy it," Moe said in response to residents' concerns.

A vacant lot on 81 First Street belonging to the city is also slated for redevelopment in the near future. All other vacant lots in the downtown area are privately owned, he said.

So far, redevelopment agency has spent more than $20 million to enhance the area in the center of town and improve the quality of life of residents within the Project Area, Moe said.