The longer Jim B. Clarke is a candidate — after a career touting other pols — the more he looks and acts like a front-tier contender for one of the four seats that will be open on the City Council in the spring.
A fortnight later, his candidacy fits like a Brooks Brothers suit.
Second Banana was yesterday. Spotlight is today and tomorrow, he hopes.
Always dapper, faultlessly groomed, with a ready smile and outstretched right hand, he beat his crowd of rivals this morning.
After entertaining a covey of supporters at the smart new L’Epicerie store across from City Hall, Mr. Clarke led a parade back across Duquesne and into the brightly lighted City Clerk’s office. He was the first of the five declared candidates to file his papers for the April 10 City Council election.
First question for Mr. Clarke across the table at L’Epicerie was about last week’s State Supreme Court takedown of Redevelopment Agencies.
“I am very concerned about the ruling for cities across the state,” he said, “but Culver City will be particularly impacted by this.”
He offered several samples:
“The Redevelopment Agency transfers somewhere around $4 million to $6 million to yjr city to help its operation.
“The School District also gets benefits from the Agency as well.
“We are going to have to find ways to replace those funds.”
If he is elected to the Council in 95 days, how, specifically, would Mr. Clarke approach this crisis?
“Even before the decision was made,” he said, “I believed one of my principal contributions would be the idea of looking at partnerships — with businesses, with nonprofits, with foundations — so we could leverage scarce city taxpayer dollars with other projects to be able to maintain levels of service.
“This is just one more reason we ought to be looking at that.”
Does Mr. Clarke sense what the legislature will do in its new session to restore a semblance of the late Redevelopment Agencies?
“No one does,” he said. “Everybody is sort of waiting. I think what will happen is that there will be a successor organization — but it will be limited only to blighted areas. We really don’t have blighted areas in Culver City. I think it will be very narrow, not for the kinds of projects we have been doing here.”
Mr. Clarke, a deputy in the office of Los Angeles Mayor Villaraigosa, following a term with retired U.S. Rep. Diane Watson (D-Culver City), flashed back to last spring when the legislature, following Gov. Brown’s direction, voted to abolish the agencies that particularly are pillars in California’s pocket-sized communities.
“I was aware of the vote, and I was aware that the League of California Cities took the lead right away,” he said “Working for the Mayor of the city of L. A., he organized the mayors of the 10 largest cities in California to go to Sacramento to lobby the legislature on this issue.”
The mission did not come close to succeeding, though.
Mr. Clarke was asked if he had encountered precise explanations from any legislators for voting Redevelopment Agencies out of existence.
“No,” he said. “But I have heard generalizations. They fall in line with the explanations for why they did away with earmarks, the Bridge to Nowhere kind of projects. I think there were cases where the Agency projects were outside the scope of what Redevelopment Agencies originally were intended to do.
“Here in Culver City, redevelopment has been very successful, and it has not been abused.
“The basic line in Sacramento is they are broke and they are looking for revenue. This is $1.7 billion that will help trim the deficit.”
(To be continued)
Mr. Clarke may be contacted at Jimclarke4culvercitycouncil@gmail.com
