'Save the base' proposal stirs controversy; bill seeks low-income housing for Air Force personnel.

A controversial plan to help keep the Los Angeles Air Force Base open and save 50,000 jobs could be challenged in court because it would entail a precedent-setting exception to the California Constitution and redevelopment law in order to build low-income housing for the military.

The base in El Segundo, which houses operations that deal with local aerospace/defense firms, is under consideration for possible closure as part of the nation's overall military cutback. A shortage of housing for base personnel may figure in the Defense Department's final decision.

Assemblyman Curtis Tucker, D-Inglewood, is aware he may run into opposition from affordable housing advocates over a bill he has introduced to allow cities to pool money that is set aside for low-income housing in their cities to build housing for Air Force personnel, said George Wiley, a Tucker aide. The bill, introduced Feb. 20, is scheduled to be heard by the Assembly Housing and Community Development Committee on Mar. 25, Wiley said.

Tucker is concerned that housing advocates, who are angry that wealthy cities have failed to build low-income housing in their municipalities, could challenge the plan in court, he said.

"They're absolutely right; some of these cities haven't met their (affordable housing) responsibilities, especially in the South Bay," Wiley said. "But in this case, we feel that the stark economic loss of the base on the local, regional and state economies would be devastating. That's why we're asking for this one-time exception."

If the Air Force base is closed and the functions relocated elsewhere, it could mean the loss of more than 50,000 jobs locally, according to a number of studies over the last two years, noted Leron Gubler, president of the South Bay Association of Chambers of Commerce, one of several local public and private agencies spear-heading the housing plan.

A closure of the base "would affect everyone in the South Bay, if people are losing their high-paying jobs," Gubler said. Pricey South Bay restaurants and shops and the local real estate market would be affected, he said.

The Los Angeles Air Force Base contracts with such aerospace companies as Rockwell International Corp., TRW Inc., Boeing Co. and Martin Marietta Corp., which employ thousands in the South Bay, and has $7 billion worth of active contracts, according to information provided by a base spokesman. In addition, Aerospace Corp., a non-profit, federally funded corporation, which provides 3,965 non-military jobs, would close and "move with us," said Lt. Col. Barry Glickman.

He said that even if the Tucker bill is passed, it is not a guarantee that the base, which employs about 7,000 government employees, will be saved.

A key consideration is that the base is short 250 housing units, Glickman said. "Not having them (the additional housing) is a greater guarantee that the base will close," he said.

Federal officials are reviewing the base to make a decision on whether it should be closed under the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990, Glickman said. The official decision will be announced in April 1993, he said.

A typical Air Force captain and his family cannot afford to live in the South Bay and, in fact, qualify for low-income housing in the City of Los Angeles, he said.

The Tucker bill provides the long-term solution to the Air Force's housing problems, but a bill introduced by state Sen. Robert Beverly, R-Redondo Beach, would create a short-term remedy, said Lee Bennett, an aide to Beverly. The bill would create a joint powers authority consisting of the cities of El Segundo, Hawthorne and Inglewood, the County of Los Angeles and the State of California. They would then provide vouchers totaling $1 million in the next two years for housing Air Force personnel, Bennett said.

Under the Beverly bill, the cities of El Segundo, Hawthorne and Inglewood would contribute $100,000 each, the county would contribute $200,000 and the state $500,000, Bennett said. The city money would be unrestricted funds and not money set aside for low-income housing, he said.

Under state law, city redevelopment agencies must set aside 20 percent of the property tax revenue generated by redevelopment agencies to build affordable housing. Last year, a special state committee found that cities across the state have been sitting on more than $700 million that could be spent to build housing.

Critics have charged that cities have been hoarding the funds because city officials don't want low-income projects, and therefore low-income residents, in their towns.

Wiley said one reason Tucker was asked to sponsor the bill for the cities of El Segundo and Hawthorne and the South Bay chambers of commerce is because he is "an urban Democrat" and a political ally of housing advocates.

Under the Tucker plan, El Segundo and Hawthorne would use the money to buy a 20-acre piece of property from TRW and build 200 to 250 units of housing, said Ron Cano, city manager for El Segundo. The cities are in exclusive negotiations with TRW to buy the land, which is at the corner of Rosecrans Avenue and Aviation Boulevard in the city of Hawthorne within a mile of the base, Cano said.

"We don't view this as a housing issue," Cano said. "We view this as a job retention issue."