Surf City’s Hardy mayor

Dave Brooks

Councilwoman Jill Hardy has stayed out of the spotlight during most

of her two years on the City Council, but struck a few sparks earlier

this month when she backed a proposal to hold Fourth of July

fireworks off the pier, against the recommendation of the police and

fire chiefs.

Her reasoning was simple enough: she feels the majority of the

community wanted this year’s display over the water. A Huntington

High School Model United Nations instructor, Hardy said she often

relies on her sense of fairness and compromise to formulate policy.

She thinks these attributes will help her at the center of the dais

when she is sworn in as Surf City’s new mayor Dec. 6.

It will be a banner year for the 33-year-old Surf City native who

will serve as one of the youngest mayors in the history of Huntington

Beach and then marry fiance Greg Moore later this summer. The

Independent recently sat down with Hardy to discuss her plans for the

coming year.

How did you find your way into politics?

I started getting involved in city affairs when I was on the youth

board. I was appointed when I was 15. That’s sort of when I learned

what went on in the city and how it works. Then, after I graduated

from college, I got involved with different groups and I was

appointed to the Planning Commission in 2000.

What will you bring to the table as mayor?

I’m pretty good at listening to people. Even when they’re

complaining, I really enjoy talking to the citizens. To me, that’s

why I’m there and I really enjoy that part. I’ve given residents a

chance to talk to someone, like the fireworks issue. I was in the

parade two years ago and people were shouting at my float because the

majority of council voted against having fireworks at the beach,

although I voted for it. Anyway, people were yelling at my float and

I was like “Hey, I tried.”

Were you surprised the council approved fireworks at the beach?

I was very surprised. In fact, the only talk I heard afterward was

how surprised everybody was and I haven’t really heard anything else

yet. It’s been kind of quiet.

Do you plan to keep the invocation?

Yes, I said during the campaign that I would. It’s pretty obvious

that most of the people like having the invocation so I’ll keep the

tradition that Cathy Green reinstated.

What are your major policy plans for this year?

When I was on the Planning Commission, we had Planning Commission

goals that we wanted to see come through and we’ve never done that on

the council. With the new council, it might be a good way to look at

what we want to accomplish in the future.

With the major projects coming through -- Pacific City, the Strand

-- it’s time to start looking at the parts of our city that might

need to be renewed. I personally am encouraging the city to look at

the corner of Brookhurst and Adams, Beach and Atlanta and the Edinger

Corridor.

What can the city do to fix up the older areas?

Encourage the property owners to renew. The Edinger corridor and

Beach Boulevard both have specific plans that have been drawn up but

never implemented. We should look at that again. After all, we did

spend a lot of money on that. At Beach and Atlanta, I know the

majority property owner has some plans. This is a piece of property

that really needs help and we should help him along, so that his

plan, good or bad, can at least be discussed and if the public

doesn’t like it, we can go to plan B. If they love it, when can get

it through.

The council really took a beating from the public on the condo

conversion issue. What was it like to be at the center of so many

negative feelings?

That one was particularly frustrating because a crime was

committed and it’s sort of like getting caught with a stolen stereo

or counterfeit money -- the person that gets caught and punished

isn’t necessarily the one who committed the crime. The only way we

could make sure the person who committed the crime was punished was

to go after the person that currently owned the condo and have them

in turn go after the person who sold them the condo.

It was frustrating because the feeling was that we were punishing

the victim, and in a lot of ways that was true, but that was the only

way to make sure the criminal was punished. The settlement was a way

to help the victims out and to make sure these fees did get passed on

to the person that did commit the crime.

Was the settlement agreement the council’s true intention the

entire time?

I don’t know exactly what point that came up. The idea was always

that the current owners who were charged the fee would then go after

the title companies and then the original sellers so that they could

recover their money. The settlement just helped us not have to expend

the cost or the time in pursing those individuals.