One last gasp for group fighting Hollywood redevelopment plan.

One last gasp for group fighting Hollywood redevelopment plan

Save Hollywood Our Town (SHOT) - a group of some 50 Hollywood residents, business proprietors and property owners - confirmed last week that it will continue its five-year-long battle to halt Hollywood's redevelopment by taking its case all the way to the California Supreme Court.

The 2nd Court of Appeals, in a unanimous 3-0 ruling May 17, found that the Community Redevelopment Agency is totally within its rights to proceed with the planned $922 million makeover of Hollywood.

Even SHOT's attorney, Dale Gronemeier, admitted SHOT's chances of derailing the Hollywood project now are slim.

"Whenever you appeal a case, you go in with one strike against you, and losing that appeal gives you two strikes," Gronemeier said. "But we feel the Supreme Court might agree to take a look at this one because it contains some issues of statewide importance. It's also the largest redevelopment project ever undertaken in California, both in terms of acreage and in terms of money budgeted."

Bruce Tepper, the attorney representing the CRA, said the Supreme Court has a consistent track record of refusing to hear cases in which the Appeals Court's decision was unanimous, as it was in this instance.

Making a Supreme Court hearing even more unlikely is the fact that the state's highest court has steered clear of redevelopment law altogether in recent years.

The most recent redevelopment case to be heard by the California Supreme Court was in 1976, confirmed Gronemeier. That case involved a redevelopment project in San Diego County, which the court struck down because the area was not "blighted," as defined by redevelopment law.

Likewise, Gronemeier claims Hollywood is not blighted enough to warrant public assistance.

"You can only justify spending a billion dollars of taxpayers' money by proving that private enterprise would not redevelop the area by itself." he said. "That may be true for Watts or East Los Angeles, but not for Hollywood."

Against all odds, Gronemeier insisted SHOT will file its Supreme Court petition within the 40-day filing period.

Meanwhile, attorney's meters keep whirring.

The CRA has racked up nearly $1 million in attorneys' fees so far in defense of its Hollywood redevelopment plan, and SHOT has accumulated a $600,000 legal tab.

Gronemeier said his firm, Gronemeier & Barker of Pasadena, has excused two-thirds of SHOT's legal expenses, declaring it pro bono work. That leaves $200,000, however, which isn't a bad consolation prize for a losing side's attorneys.

Gronemeier's meter will keep running, too, throughout the entire petitioning of the Supreme Court and trial, if there is one. So that consolation prize is still growing and will continue to grow for weeks to come.

In other words, the winners of this legal battle once again appear to be the attorneys. The ultimate losers appear to be SHOT's rank and file, who have lost another court battle and 200,000 simoleons, so far.

If the Supreme Court refuses to hear SHOT's case, as is expected, Los Angeles County officials will release to the CRA $14 million in tax increment funds the county has been holding in escrow for the past five years.

Even more important, a Supreme Court refusal would free the CRA to issue bonds to further subsidize its proposed Hollywood makeover.