A letter to the editor
By Fatma Marouf
The Record - November 22, 2003
Stockton is planning to select a developer for the Gleason Park Commercial Master Development Area, an eight-block section south of the Crosstown Freeway that includes the Little Manila District.
The groups vying for that role seek economic revitalization of the area. Their proposals reflect different philosophies about how to achieve this goal and will have radically different impacts.
Bob Hong’s FHLW Pacific Group plans to demolish six full blocks to build an Asia Pacific Center. Under this proposal, acquisition of all buildings in this six-block area would happen very quickly (it would supposedly begin in December and be over by July). Demolition would begin shortly thereafter.
Hong’s proposal doesn’t mention the federal injunction that forbids the city from demolishing the Mariposa Hotel until it replaces the low-income housing units that would be lost.
Nor does Hong’s proposal include any information about how many other affordable-housing units would be lost and how many people would be displaced.
The Little Manila Foundation proposes strategic infill development to create a mixed-use, high-density environment combining commercial opportunities with the preservation of moderate and low-income housing.
The foundation believes a vibrant residential community plays a crucial role in supporting the area’s commercial activities.
Without people on the streets, there will be no renaissance of the Gleason Park area. Under Little Manila’s proposal, there would be no eminent domain and no displacement until after replacement housing is created.
The city shouldn’t ignore the disparate impacts these proposals will have on Stockton’s housing stock. According to the city, Stockton has a need for 10,475 more units of affordable housing by 2008.
Yet objectives set forth indicate the city plans to meet less than 6 percent of this need. In selecting a developer for the Gleason Park area, city officials have the opportunity to avoid compounding the affordable-housing crisis.
The issue of economic revitalization should be equally clear. Hong’s proposal provides no financial information — not even a basic budget. How can the city evaluate the feasibility of such a scheme — much less endorse its economic viability — without any figures?
Who will be the patrons of this Asian-theme shopping center? Not local residents, whose incomes average around $11,000 per year.
Are the owners going to re-invest their profits in this neighborhood? Are they going to hire local residents — the so-called drug pushers and trouble-makers — to staff their stores?
The plan for economic revitalization in Little Manila’s proposal is much more realistic. By focusing on revitalizing the community that already exists while bringing in more retail and service opportunities, the proposal will significantly benefit current residents and create a hub of activity not limited to business hours.
The foundation proposes to expand the project area to include vacant properties west of Center Street, which could be used for a larger retail center. This proposal does more than preserve three historical buildings. It seeks to preserve the identity of an entire community and stimulate economic growth from the inside out.
The foundation’s proposal was developed out of several community meetings, where interest groups discussed their visions for the area.
It calls for cultural continuity instead of cultural commodification. It stands for preservation rather than displacement and demolition. These aren’t inconsistent with economic growth. They’re the seeds of revitalization.
The real question isn’t what will be built on this eight-block piece of land, but how power will be exercised and understood.
Will government hold itself accountable to the goals set forth in its General Plan and do what is in the best interests of this “blighted” area? Or will it lead us in blindfolds to the bulldozer’s lair?
