PEOPLE POWER - The trek to City Hall in order to make two minutes of public comment on an issue that appears to be a done-deal can be such an idealistic but unrewarding experience. But three different campaigns demonstrated that it really does make a difference.
● The City of LA’s Administrative Citation Enforcement program was well on its way to the City Council, fueled by such confidence that Councilman Koretz released the victory announcement in advance of the victory. He should have waited.
For two weeks in a row, opponents of the City Attorney’s proposed version of the ACE program spoke before the Budget & Finance Committee, raising enough concerns to prompt Councilman Rosendahl to declare "This ordinance is half-baked!"
The proposed ACE program ordinance was sent back to the City Attorney’s office for repairs, a process that is meant to reconcile the differences between the vision for code enforcement and the reality of the City Attorney’s proposal.
● The Department of Transportation ill-advised enforcement of LA’s murky apron-parking prohibition prompted a City Watch article that challenged the City Attorney’s motives and another article that challenged the legality of the City’s newfound enthusiasm for aprons.
Community leaders built websites such as StopLADOT and Palisades Parking Patrol, organized citywide pickets, and petitioned their government in the form of public comment.
It took a couple of motions, the first one completely ineffective and the second one more convincing, before the City Attorney issued a statement acknowledging merits of the public argument:
“The Los Angeles City Council approved a motion on October 12, 2011, suspending enforcement of LAMC Section 80.53. While Section 80.53 is suspended, an owner or lessee may park on the apron as long as no portion of the vehicle touches a sidewalk or projects into the street in violation of California Vehicle Code Sections 22500(e) and (f), respectively. Enforcement of California Vehicle Section 22500, in its entirety, will remain in full force and effect. In addition, other sections of the Los Angeles Municipal Code regulating "parkways" shall also remain in full force and effect.”
● The third round of public comments to result in a victory came from the residents of East Hollywood who were in search of relief from the “code enforcement zealots” responsible for 177 over-in-height fence citations that resulted in fees, fines, and penalties that then resulted in liens, garnishments, and legal actions.
The journey to City Hall took four months and began with a dozen weekly neighborhood walking tours [link] to engage the community, the local LAPD Captains, the businesses, and community groups. The East Hollywood Street Beat mobilized on the streets and then went indoors, transitioning into the LA City Works civic engagement training that prepared them for their public comments at City Hall.
The East Hollywood residents spoke out at the Budget & Finance Committee [link] in opposition to the proposed ACE program and then returned to City Hall to protest the Building & Safety citations that they claim “criminalize the residents while ignoring the
criminals!”
City Council President Eric Garcetti stepped out of the City Council proceedings, passing the gavel to Councilman Zine, and listening to the stakeholders’ stories of the complaint driven system of code enforcement that has resulted in uneven application of the law and selective prosecution of code violations.
Garcetti brought in David Lara from Building & Safety and Jane Usher from the City Attorney’s office and set three solutions in play.
1) A moratorium on over-in-height fence and front yard use code violation enforcement and prosecution.
2) A moratorium on the collection of fees, fines, and penalties as well as a moratorium on liens, garnishments, and legal actions for non-compliance.
3) The creation of LA’s first Fence Height District.
In each of these three examples, the work is far from done, but it’s much farther along than it would have been if the public had remained silent.
These three campaigns, from the opponents of ACE to those cited for Apron Parking to the victims of zealous Building & Safety citations, all demonstrate that it pays to speak up and to partner in solutions that improve the quality of life in our neighborhoods.
(Stephen Box is a grassroots advocate and writes for CityWatch. He can be reached at: Stephen@thirdeyecreative.net .)
PEOPLE POWER - The trek to City Hall in order to make two minutes of public comment on an issue that appears to be a done-deal can be such an idealistic but unrewarding experience. But three different campaigns demonstrated that it really does make a difference.
● The City of LA’s Administrative Citation Enforcement program was well on its way to the City Council, fueled by such confidence that Councilman Koretz released the victory announcement in advance of the victory. He should have waited.
For two weeks in a row, opponents of the City Attorney’s proposed version of the ACE program spoke before the Budget & Finance Committee, raising enough concerns to prompt Councilman Rosendahl to declare "This ordinance is half-baked!"
The proposed ACE program ordinance was sent back to the City Attorney’s office for repairs, a process that is meant to reconcile the differences between the vision for code enforcement and the reality of the City Attorney’s proposal.
● The Department of Transportation ill-advised enforcement of LA’s murky apron-parking prohibition prompted a City Watch article that challenged the City Attorney’s motives and another article that challenged the legality of the City’s newfound enthusiasm for aprons. [link]
Community leaders built websites such as StopLADOT and Palisades Parking Patrol, organized citywide pickets, and petitioned their government in the form of public comment.
It took a couple of motions, the first one completely ineffective and the second one more convincing, before the City Attorney issued a statement acknowledging merits of the public argument:
“The Los Angeles City Council approved a motion on October 12, 2011, suspending enforcement of LAMC Section 80.53. While Section 80.53 is suspended, an owner or lessee may park on the apron as long as no portion of the vehicle touches a sidewalk or projects into the street in violation of California Vehicle Code Sections 22500(e) and (f), respectively. Enforcement of California Vehicle Section 22500, in its entirety, will remain in full force and effect. In addition, other sections of the Los Angeles Municipal Code regulating "parkways" shall also remain in full force and effect.”
● The third round of public comments to result in a victory came from the residents of East Hollywood who were in search of relief from the “code enforcement zealots” responsible for 177 over-in-height fence citations that resulted in fees, fines, and penalties that then resulted in liens, garnishments, and legal actions.
The journey to City Hall took four months and began with a dozen weekly neighborhood walking tours to engage the community, the local LAPD Captains, the businesses, and community groups. The East Hollywood Street Beat mobilized on the streets and then went indoors, transitioning into the LA City Works civic engagement training that prepared them for their public comments at City Hall.
The East Hollywood residents spoke out at the Budget & Finance Committee in opposition to the proposed ACE program and then returned to City Hall to protest the Building & Safety citations that they claim “criminalize the residents while ignoring the criminals!”
City Council President Eric Garcetti stepped out of the City Council proceedings, passing the gavel to Councilman Zine, and listening to the stakeholders’ stories of the complaint driven system of code enforcement that has resulted in uneven application of the law and selective prosecution of code violations.
Garcetti brought in David Lara from Building & Safety and Jane Usher from the City Attorney’s office and set three solutions in play.
1) A moratorium on over-in-height fence and front yard use code violation enforcement and prosecution.
2) A moratorium on the collection of fees, fines, and penalties as well as a moratorium on liens, garnishments, and legal actions for non-compliance.
3) The creation of LA’s first Fence Height District.
In each of these three examples, the work is far from done, but it’s much farther along than it would have been if the public had remained silent.
These three campaigns, from the opponents of ACE to those cited for Apron Parking to the victims of zealous Building & Safety citations, all demonstrate that it pays to speak up and to partner in solutions that improve the quality of life in our neighborhoods.
(Stephen Box is a grassroots advocate and writes for CityWatch. He can be reached at: Stephen@thirdeyecreative.net.)
RETHINKING LA - What do you do when one of LA’s largest landlords fails to perform its business according to the law and creates a condition that leaves tenants, neighbors, and property owners vulnerable to crime, blight, and unsafe conditions?
The simple answer is to call LA’s Housing Department (LAHD) which is responsible for providing oversight to approximately 780,000 rental units throughout the City of LA.
LAHD conducts a series of programs that all have some authority over the establishment, operation, maintenance, and occupancy of rental units and is responsible for inspecting properties, protecting tenants from illegal evictions, and ensuring safe and inhabitable conditions.
But who do you call when LA’s Housing Department (LAHD) is the de facto landlord, a situation that is becoming more common as the LAHD continues to inflate its real estate portfolio through the controversial Rent Escrow Account Program (REAP).
Ideally, the REAP program applies to properties that have ongoing health and safety violations, and unresolved notices of compliance. The LAHD first cites the landlord, then intervenes and collects the rent from the tenants, offering a discount of up to 50% as amends for the substandard conditions, ensuring that the repairs are performed and that the property is brought up to standards.
In reality, the LAHD has incurred the wrath of the last two City Controllers, prompting Laura Chick to declare “REAP is broken!” in 2001 and Wendy Greuel to demand “Show me the money!” in a 2010 audit that revealed LAHD somehow failed to even try to collect $48 million in fees and rent owed to the department.
Critics of the REAP program, and there are many, include tenants who live in buildings that provide safe refuge to protected squatters, landlords who lose rental income which leads to foreclosure, and neighbors who live next to properties that go into a downward spiral of LAHD decline.
In East Hollywood, there is a 74 unit building that fell victim to the LAHD’s REAP program, incurring code violations that triggered citations that accrued and resulted in the property being “seized” by the LAHD which then collected the rent and left the landlord in foreclosure proceedings.
Fans of the REAP program claim that it protects the tenants, ensures repairs and maintenance, and gives teeth to the inspections and citations and demands for performance.
Critics claim that savvy tenants can reduce their rent by up to 50% by damaging the property, initiating the complaints and subsequent inspections, and putting the property into a REAP tailspin that results in foreclosure and safe-haven for squatters.
The 74 unit building in East Hollywood serves as testimony to the doomsday critics, resulting in a tenant claim that “our lawyers are helping the drug dealers to stay in the apartment building.” The tenants are embroiled in a two-year-long legal journey that pits lawyers against property managers as the LAHD stands by, leaving drug dealers and prostitutes “squatting” as they wait in line for a settlement.
The LAPD’s Senior Lead Officer for the neighborhood reported that in one single day, the property was responsible for four calls, “Man with a gun, prostitution, drug activity, and gang activity.”
The good tenants who can afford to move have left the building, the bad tenants have burrowed in for the payoff, the landlord is fighting to reclaim the property, the LAPD contends they are helpless without the City Attorney’s support, the neighbors are reaching out for help, and the LAHD continues to operate the REAP program as if there are no problems.
Farther down the street, there is a small Craftsman house built in 1913. It has a separate two-story apartment at the back of the property and it sits next to similarly sized houses that are owner occupied.
Approximately a year ago, the LAHD placed the Craftsman house and the rear apartment in the REAP program, demonstrating that simply having one rental unit on a property leaves it vulnerable to the grim REAPer. The house and the apartment went into the typical tailspin, the property owner and the tenant left, and the buildings are now home to squatters who arrive mid to late evening and then leave early in the morning.
Apparently the LAHD’s inspectors work 9 to 5, interrupting the squatters’ routine only slightly, a small inconvenience that allows for free accommodations with plenty of off-street parking.
The current list of REAP properties ranges from duplexes to buildings with hundreds of rental units. Properties are added to the LAHD’s portfolio on a regular basis, bringing the current total to almost 1700 separate buildings.
The LAHD has just been taken to task by the City Controller for failing to collect $48 million in fees and rents, for sitting on $10 million in dormant accounts, and for failing to administer the funds collected to ensure effective inspections and oversight.
Add to this the ongoing claims of erratic and inconsistent oversight, inspections, and enforcement and it is apparent that LA’s Department of Housing is not only one of the largest landlords in Los Angeles. It is also one of the most irresponsible.
LA’s Housing Department must comply with the same law it sets out to enforce, it must impose the same standards on itself that it imposes on others, and it must do it within the same 30 day deadline.
Most of all, it must face the same threat of foreclosure and loss of income that others face. That’s when the playing field will level and the tenants, the landlords, and the neighbors of Los Angeles will be protected.
(Stephen Box is a grassroots advocate and writes for CityWatch. He can be reached at: Stephen@thirdeyecreative.net.)
Los Angeles is the Capital of Contradictions and all it takes is a fence to prove that point.
On the one hand, the Residents in East Hollywood have found themselves targeted by Building & Safety and the City Attorney because they dared to build over-in-height fences around their homes, their property, and their families in order to protect themselves from criminals.
On the other hand, the Residents of Runyon Canyon have the local City Council office supporting a fence that would protect an entire neighborhood against the threat of...gasp...tourists!
As the residents of East Hollywood plead for a reprieve from the City Attorney’s enforcement of the Building & Safety citations, their request falls on deaf ears while the residents of Runyon Canyon will have their case heard next week in the City Council's Public Works Committee.
East Hollywood residents have two gang injunctions in place but the City Attorney’s Neighborhood Prosecutor is unable to actually enforce the injunctions and abatement actions, leaving squatters, drug dealers, gangbangers, prostitutes and thieves free to work their trade. The City of LA is kept busy cracking down on the residents who build over-in-height fences to protect themselves from these people.
Runyon Canyon residents have endured “security issues such as loitering, littering, drinking and smoking” due to the popularity of the area for tourists, the folks who come from around the world to spend their hard earned money in our community. As Tourism moves to the #1 position in job generation, ahead of international trade, manufacturing plants, film and TV studios, aerospace firms, and colleges and universities, the City of LA responds by criminalizing tourists.
That’s right, it turns out that the tourists are a greater threat to the residents of Runyon Canyon than gangbangers are to the residents of East Hollywood.
The absurdity gets thicker.
In East Hollywood, the City Attorney’s office instructs locals to simply apply for a “Fence District,” something that doesn’t exist, that doesn’t have an application or implementation standard in place, that has no established fee, and that is simply a theoretical proposition at this point.
One might argue that there already are “Fence Districts” in place. For example, Monroe Street has 20 homes and 16 of them have over-in-height fences, resulting in a de facto “Fence District.”
While the legal experts debate the uneven application of LA’s municipal code, it’s important to note that 24 years ago, Van Nuys Municipal Judge Kenneth Lee Chotiner dismissed an over-in-height fence case, noting the ubiquitous nature of over-in-height fences and calling for “standards to guide prosecution of these offenses.”
East Hollywood is still waiting on those standards while Building & Safety is still citing residents.
In Runyon Canyon, the City Council motion relies on the California Vehicle Code (CVC) which says in section 21101.4 that a local municipal authority can close a street to the public if it’s found that “there is serious and continual criminal activity” in the area recommended for closure and if it is determined that it is the traffic that contributes to the criminal activity.
The City Council motion clearly articulates that the “serious and continual criminal activity” in Runyon Canyon consists of “loitering, littering, drinking and smoking” but no mention is made of whether the tourists are on foot or in vehicles.
While the legal experts debate the nature of “serious crime,” it’s important to note that 17 years ago Judge Fred Cook of the 2nd District Court of Appeals ruled against the City of Los Angeles and the Whitley Heights Civic Association in their gated community proposal, opining “we doubt the Legislature wants to permit a return to feudal times with each suburb being a fiefdom to which other citizens of the state are denied their fundamental right of access to use public streets within those areas.”
At the time of the Whitley Heights case, the City of LA had over 100 pending applications for street closures.
The debate over public space and private space is not new, neither is the idea that gated communities and walled off homes may have an immediate benefit to those on the inside but not to those on the outside.
While the debate over “crime prevention through environmental design” (CPTED) simmers, it’s imperative that the City of LA consider the rulings and decisions that have established legal precedent and that serve as the standard for City Hall actions and decisions.
Most importantly, the City of Los Angeles must treat the residents fairly and equitably, delivering city services consistently and applying the law evenly.
It’s not just the mark of a Great City, it the law.
(Stephen Box is a grassroots advocate and writes for CityWatch. He can be reached at: Stephen@thirdeyecreative.net .)
RETHINKING LA - Thursday evenings in East Hollywood are for walking and all summer long, residents from throughout the community have gathered at a different neighborhood each week to walk, to make new friends, to partner on public safety, and to share stories of the past and hopes for the future.
The East Hollywood Street Beat was born out of frustration. Local homeowners had responded to the recent crime wave in the community by building over-in-height fences to protect their families and their homes.
This last ditch effort to combat crime didn’t prompt the City Attorney to partner with the LAPD in the enforcement of Gang Injunctions or in Abatement Actions. Instead, it drew the wrath of LA’s Department of Building & Safety which went after 177 homeowners, citing them for code violations that generate revenue but fail to address public safety.
The City Attorney partnered with Building & Safety in levying fines, fees, penalties and variances that cost $350, $550, $1925, and $4800, all so that a homeowner can keep the fence they built to protect their home and family. This City Attorney action came with threats of “lien, garnishment, and other legal actions.”
It was against this backdrop of bureaucratic selective enforcement and misguided priorities that yet another attempted robbery took place. The family who called the police received a lecture from responding LAPD patrol officers on crime prevention measures that included securing person and property against criminal attack.
The demonstrated disconnect between the LAPD’s advice and the City Attorney’s actions sent a clear message to the residents of this low-income and high-crime community that public safety was a Do-It-Yourself project.
It was on that night, just as the LAPD patrol departed and the long warm summer nights arrived, that the East Hollywood Street Beat was born, a simple movement to encourage local residents to walk the streets, often and everywhere.
The following week, as the Street Beat gathered in the first of the 11 different East Hollywood neighborhoods, the LAPD arrived in a patrol car with the ominous advice, “This is a tough neighborhood. Be careful!”
The LAPD officers were invited join the Street Beat but they rejected the invitation, explaining, “We need our tactical gear and we're not at liberty to leave our vehicle.”
East Hollywood is a border town, one that rests between the LAPD’s West and Central Bureaus, resulting in oversight from three different LAPD divisions - Northeast, Rampart and Hollywood. A crime at the intersection of Santa Monica Boulevard & Normandie Avenue can involve all three divisions, creating a bureaucratic maze that is difficult to navigate.
It took some coaxing from the community, and some support from Chief Beck, Assistant Chief Paysinger, Deputy Chief Perez, and Commander Villegas, but it wasn’t long before the Street Beats had the full support and participation of the LAPD.
Rampart’s Capt. Sanders joined the Street Beat for a Normandie Avenue BBQ, Northeast’s Capt. Murphy demonstrated some serious diplomatic skills as the Street Beat walked to Barnsdall, and Hollywood’s Capt. Girmala toured Thai Town while engaging homeowners in one-on-one discussions of their public safety issues.
In a neighborhood that is filled with traffic that moves at blistering speeds, the opportunity to slow down life to a walking pace gave locals a unique opportunity to share their concerns with the LAPD. On one evening, the LAPD dropped from the walk twice, first as the Street Beat walked through a domestic violence scene and second when it walked through an illegal drug sale.
This was a clear demonstration of the underlying issue that prompted the over-in-height fences in the first place. If locals can’t walk their neighborhood without walking through criminal activity, they insulate their families, they isolate their children, and they do what’s best to protect their homes.
As the Street Beat headed north on a residential street a few weeks ago, it passed an apartment building that had been the subject of “man running with gun, gang activity, drug sales, and prostitution” reports, all in the day prior to the walk. While the LAPD expressed frustration that they were limited in their enforcement authority, the City Attorney was unable to offer Abatement Action support because of “budget cuts.”
It was the contrast of the City Attorney’s laissez-faire attitude to the transactions between criminals in a REAP property occupied by squatters against the City Attorney’s actions against homeowners who act to protect themselves by building fences that struck the Street Beat participants as an example of a City upside down in priorities.
Along the way, the East Hollywood Street Beat transitioned from a “take back the streets” public safety initiative into an “embrace the legacy” community pride initiative.
LANI and studioneleven, the folks behind the Virgil Village Traffic Calming project, joined the Street Beat to share the community’s vision for turning Virgil Village into a more walkable street with great public space and parklets that encourage people and supported the local economy.
The legacy of Route 66 was a reoccurring theme on the walks and different community leaders took turns in sharing their connection to “America’s Main Street.” From the old Jay's Burgers to the last library built by Carnegie, from the old Campus Theatre to the Hollywood Star Lanes where the Big Lebowski was shot, Route 66 was always full of surprises.
To suggest that going for a walk is a virtuous activity is not new. Einstein said that going for a walk was key to problem solving. Native Americans contend that walking in the shoes of another is the key to understanding. Nietzsche claimed that all truly great thoughts are conceived by walking.
The East Hollywood Street Beat is joined by other great community walks.
The Big Parade is a two-day walk through Los Angeles that starts at Angel’s Flight and ends at the Hollywood Sign. Led by Dan Koeppel, also famous for his tours of LA’s hidden stairs, the Big Parade is equal parts community building, athletic endeavor, and history lesson.
The Great LA Walk is an annual event that starts at One Wilshire and follows Wilshire Avenue west for 16 miles, until it simply runs out of land. Led by “Mike and Maria” of Franklin Avenue, this urban safari is “part discovery, part gawking tour and part epic celebration of LA’s grand boulevard.
Each year 66 Productions leads a series of walks that cover the western 66 miles of Route 66 in walks that average 6 miles each. The Route 66 tours focus on the history of “The Mother Road” and they come right down Sunset to Santa Monica Boulevard where they turn west and walk right through East Hollywood where they may end up joining the Street Beat.
The East Hollywood Street Beat continues to walk on Thursday nights, this week in Kingsley Vista with friends from the LAPD’s Hollywood Division.
“Walk the streets,
meet your neighbors,
stroll with the LAPD,
make new friends,
take back the streets,
one step at a time.”
Next East Hollywood walk:
Thursday, September 8, 2011
7 pm - 9 pm
802 N. Normandie
Los Angeles, CA 90029
For more information on the East Hollywood Street Beat, call 213-422-7694.
(Stephen Box is a grassroots advocate and writes for CityWatch. He can be reached at: Stephen@thirdeyecreative.net .)
RETHINKING LA - A young couple from Barcelona rented a car in Chicago and set out on a self-guided tour of America’s historic Route 66, a journey that would take them along the “Mother Road” where they planned to visit the old filling stations, eat at the homey diners, stay at the rustic motels, shop at the dusty Museums, and collect Route 66 experiences.
Ramon and Cristi were still in Illinois when they stopped at Staunton, a small town of 5,000 people that is host to Henry’s Ra66it Ranch, a classic roadside attraction that offers Route 66 tourists a collection of rabbits, both furry and VW, as well as Route 66 memorabilia galore.
The young couple wandered in, soaked up the Route 66 charm, made a $5 purchase with a $20 bill, and were given $5 in change. They were shorted $10 by the shopkeeper.
Tourists getting shortchanged is hardly news these days, but this took place on Route 66, America’s Main Street.
Rich Henry, the proprietor of Henry’s Ra66it Ranch, reports it wasn’t until the young couple had left that he realized his mistake. “They didn’t say anything,” he wrote when he appealed to the Route 66 mailing group for help, “I wish they would have.”
Rich put out the word to his network and urged everybody on Route 66 to keep on the lookout for “a young Spanish couple in a white vehicle” and then he pleaded “please give them a $10 bill and I will reimburse you ASAP for it.”
Within hours he started getting responses. From Amsterdam, “I cannot help from Holland but have to say that this is spoken like a true gentleman.” From Webb City, Oklahoma, population 300, “We thought we found your couple, they did not speak English nor did they understand why I was trying to give them money. Turns out “Raul and Laura” were driving a red Chevy, we’re still looking!”
Ramon and Cristi continued on their journey and travelled through Missouri and into the southeast tip of Kansas where they stopped in the small town of Galena, population 3287, at an old service station run by “Four Women on the Route.” Out in front of the station is an old tow truck named “Tow Tater” that served as the inspiration for the character “Tow Mater” in the movie Cars.
Melba Rigg was on duty as the young couple from Barcelona pulled into the parking lot and she was ready when they came inside, first making sure it was Ramon and Cristi and then presenting them with a $10 bill. “It was so cool...they looked me like I was a nut...’this lady is giving us free money’...when I told them why, they took a few minutes and then they understood, they were so nice...I told them we were a big family!”
Rich Henry got the word from Melba that his debt had been paid and he wrote “What a nice ending and I feel better for it.” Yoda, another Route 66 mailing group member, chimed in, adding “What a great end to this story! Route 66 is not just tarmac, it’s a living, breathing network of people stretching over 2448 miles!”
Well, they were both right and they were both wrong. It was great but it wasn’t the end, not by a long stretch of Route 66.
Ramon and Cristi continued on their journey where they encountered Route 66 strangers who treated them as old friends. Passing through Afton, Oklahoma, population 1073, they met Laura Kane of the Route 66 Afton Station who reports “They couldn’t understand why everywhere they went, people were offering them $10. They indicated that the folks on Route 66 must be the nicest and most honest people in the world.”
The folks in Phelan, California kept on the lookout in anticipation of their Spanish guests, this time with a microphone in hand instead of a $10 bill. In the words of James M Conkle, editor of the Route 66 Pulse, “This story is really what Route 66 is all about.”
By now, Ramon and Cristi have probably made it to California, winding through Highland Park and China Town, meandering down Sunset Boulevard and then turning onto Santa Monica Boulevard for the drive to the Pacific Ocean.
The folks in East Hollywood were watching for them, in fact Linoleum City actually had the red carpet out, but in all that traffic, there’s a good chance the tourists from Spain probably slipped by and made their way to the end of Route 66.
Except that’s not possible because Route 66 never ends, it’s the place where great adventures start and it’s the journey where great friendships are made. Most importantly, to generations of people from all over the world, Route 66 will always the road of new beginnings.
(Stephen Box is a grassroots advocate and writes for CityWatch. He can be reached at: Stephen@thirdeyecreative.net .)
RETHINKING LA - Mayor Villaraigosa’s recent success in navigating LA’s code enforcement and planning variance process demonstrates the uneven landscape of City Hall, one that favors connections and money while punishing residents of low-income and high-crime neighborhoods. Acting on the advice of the LAPD, General Services, and Homeland Security, Villaraigosa tendered a variance request for an over-in-height front yard wall last year, stirring objections from the Windsor Square Association and charges that the wall violates the Historic Preservation Overlay Zone (HPOZ) standards.
In a demonstration of the traditional “ask for the outrageous, settle for the offensive” strategy employed by the professionals who artfully manipulate the city’s plans, zones, and codes, Villaraigosa initially requested a variance for a 96” wall and then conceded to a 65” security fence.
As of this past week, the Mayor’s variance requested was granted. Nicely played!
Meanwhile, the residents of East Hollywood continue to grapple with their own public safety issues while the Department of Building and Safety cites them for over-in-height fences, issuing fines, penalties and orders to remove the offending structures.
The Mayor’s demonstration of variance prowess has prompted charges of inequitable application of the law, after all, the residents are willing to pay the same fee that the Mayor paid, they’re willing to accept the same limitations that he accepts, they want the same protection that he wants.
In town hall and neighborhood council meetings, representatives of the City of LA’s “Department of No” have repeatedly placed obstacles in front of the residents while lecturing them on their responsibility for public safety.
The community has responded with a series of solutions that address the underlying issue of public safety while resolving the specific code enforcement drama.
1) Implement a “Due on Sale” policy that allows residents in low-income, high-crime neighborhoods to pursue over-in-height fence variances without the immediate burden of an oppressive $4800 fee.
2) Implement a Public Safety focus that requires the removal of over-in-height fences that interfere with public safety while permitting over-in-height fences that support public safety. If the City of LA can’t figure out the difference, it’s time to slow down and figure it out.
3) Return the Neighborhood Prosecutor to the community, implementing public safety strategies such as nuisance abatements and gang injunctions that would address the public safety issues that are prompting residents to build security fences in the first place.
4) Declare a moratorium on Building & Safety’s complaint-driven enforcement strategy in favor a systemic standards driven approach to code enforcement. Citing one neighbor while ignoring the other is the best way to divide a community and breed contempt for the law.
5) Declare a moratorium on enforcement of Planning’s simplistic “one size fits all neighborhoods” front yard fence standard. Develop context specific standards that address the different character and personalities of individual neighborhoods. Most importantly, address the unique needs of each community. From horse property to hillside property to homes on busy urban streets, fence standards should reflect the local environment.
6) Consider the City Hall scrum that must be engaged by the public, (Mayor’s office, City Attorney’s office, City Council office, City Planning, Building & Safety, LAPD) all in an effort to protect one’s family and property. Something so simple gets so complicated and then the City of LA trips over itself fining and adding penalties when residents fail to navigate the system.
7) Join the residents of East Hollywood for Street Beat, “Taking back the streets, one step at a time!” Thursday evenings through the summer, from 7 pm to 9 pm, neighbors walk, they talk, and they connect with the community.
(Stephen Box is a grassroots advocate and writes for CityWatch. He can be reached at: Stephen@thirdeyecreative.net .)
RETHINKING LA - Modern police work is a scientific business, driven by statistical analysis of criminal behavior, resulting in a focused high-tech law enforcement response that delivers efficient crime prevention, suppression, and prosecution.
Or so we are led to believe.
There was a time when police officers walked the beat, talked to residents, chatted with business operators, greeted passers-by, and established community relationships on the street.
Times have changed. People walk less, they drive more, and law enforcement has gotten too big for its boots, literally.
In East Hollywood, a densely populated, low-income and high-crime neighborhood with over a hundred languages spoken, residents are taking to the streets and they’re inviting the Los Angeles Police Department to join them for a walk, a casual stroll through the community.
There was a time when “walking the beat” was a common community policing strategy but decades ago the patrol car replaced the personal approach and now most community policing arrives in an SUV, parks in the red, and takes place at community meetings, not on the street.
The most recent enforcement activity in East Hollywood has focused on the residents, not the criminals, as Building and Safety has engaged in a seven-fold increase in over-height fence investigations.
At Hollywood residents have received non-compliance letters, fines, penalties and orders to remove the front yard fences that exceed 42” in height. They argue that the fences are a response to criminal activity and a last-ditch effort to protect their property and their families.
The LAPD has experimented with a return to community policing on foot, most recently in the Skid Row area where Central Division made weekly “Walks with the Captain,” a tradition that resulted in increased connectivity and visibility, regarded as an important step toward the suppression of crime.
St. Louis actually did the numbers and found that the “Cops on Foot” strategy resulted in a 17% reduction in crime, a statistic that is almost as impressive as the fact that they also tracked interactions with residents, business operators, and passers-by.
Perhaps the weekly LAPD Comstat meetings should shift from a Division by Division analysis of criminal activity and start evaluating human contact, relationships developed and neighborhood discoveries that come from slowing down and chatting.
I know it’s a stretch to expect the LAPD to walk every street and alley in LA, after all there’s 6500 miles of streets and the broken sidewalks can be very dangerous. But the people who know what’s going on don’t always want to work their way through a phone directory, leave messages and call back. They simply want to talk and a casual walk in a densely populated neighborhood will result in face to face conversations that start slowly, eventually resulting in a flow of information.
In East Hollywood, there are elements that can’t be seen from a patrol car that’s rushing in traffic, but stand on the sidewalk for a while and people start to appear from under the trees and bushes on the Caltrans property along the 101 freeway. Stand at a bus stop in the blazing sun and it becomes evident why people don’t feel safe.
New York’s Albany applied the “Cops on Foot” strategy to its high-crime areas in successful effort “to build trust” and the community has responded by partnering with the department and offering information on criminal activity.
In the UK, the beat policing strategy is recognized as having an impact that is tough to measure statistically, but that is credited with reducing fear and insulating behavior that creates isolation in densely populated communities.
While the statisticians and criminal scientists debate the merits of foot patrols, the residents of East Hollywood are rebounding from the latest assault on their community by going for a walk, up Normandie Ave and through the neighborhood, one street at a time, one step at a time.
East Hollywood Street Beat, Thursday evenings throughout the summer, 800 N. Normandie, from 7 pm to 9 pm. Join LAPD’s Rampart and Northeast divisions, meet the Captains who are responsible for public safety, and make new friends on the streets of East Hollywood.
(Stephen Box is a grassroots advocate and writes for CityWatch. He can be reached at: Stephen@thirdeyecreative.net .)
RETHINKING LA - Los Angeles is a city of conflict, filled with neighborhoods that struggle to protect their unique identities, balancing the restriction of boundaries against the freedom of common space while maintaining the natural tension between the rights of the individual and the obligations of the community.
24 years ago, a Los Angeles resident called the Department of Building and Safety and complained of a neighbor’s over-height fence. A battle broke out that went on for years.
The Canoga Park homeowner with the illegal front-yard fence refused to tear it down and instead offered evidence of oversize and illegal fences and hedges at the homes of Dist. Atty. Ira Reiner and City Council members Joy Picus, Marvin Braude, Joel Wachs and Hal Bernson.
The City Attorney considered the abundance of over-height front yard fences in communities throughout Los Angeles and finally issued a statement declaring that the City of LA would only prosecute "emergency situations" involving privately owned fences that are public-safety hazards.
Since then, the memory of the City Attorney’s policy has faded but the municipal code restricting
front yard fences and hedges to a height of 42 inches (three and a half feet) still stands. It is complemented by a requirement that the Department of Building and Safety investigate all complaints from the community, resulting in the selective and uneven enforcement of LA’s front yard fence code.
In East Hollywood, the Department of Building and Safety has experienced a seven-fold increase in complaints of over-height fences and hedges, demonstrating a rift in the community and a disagreement over public safety, crime prevention, personal space and self-preservation. Complaints in Council District 13 typically average one per week but so far this year, there have been 177 complaints.
The cited community members have appealed to anyone who will listen but the response from the Mayor’s office, the City Council office, the City Attorney’s office and City Planning has been underwhelming. Residents argue that the fences are legal if one pays the variance fee but that in a lower income family living in a higher crime rate neighborhood, $4800 is simply too expensive. They want to protect their families and their homes and they perceive the security fencing as a vital last resort.
The Hollywood Studio District and the East Hollywood Neighborhood Councils have responded by calling for a moratorium on the enforcement of over-height fence code violations, for an investigation into the creation of a fence district that would allow for exceptions to the city’s fence limitations, and for a policy that would waive the traditional variance fee in lower income/higher crime neighborhoods.
The typical argument for the issuance of a variance is public safety as the Mayor’s Windsor Square request for a “security wall” at the Getty House demonstrates. Citing public safety concerns, the Mayor’s team successfully navigated the variance process and demonstrated that with sufficient money and expertise, a resident can build an over-height wall.
The Beverly Press reports that the city’s general services and police departments wanted to construct the wall “in order to provide enhanced security for the front of the house.”
So much for the neutrality of the LAPD on the issue of front yard fences.
In the Mayor’s case, the proposed six-foot-three-inch wall not only exceeds the city’s 42” limit, it violates the Windsor Square Historic Preservation Overlay Zone (HPOZ) standards which exist to preserve the architectural character and identity of the neighborhood.
While some argue that the Mayor of Los Angeles is entitled to a wall that protects his privacy and safety, members of the HPOZ Board responded “When he leaves, we will be stuck with the fence whether or not there is an occupant of the house.”
The argument against over-height walls typically rests on public safety issues that arise from the creation of hiding places, the removal of “eyes on the streets” and connectivity, and the obstruction of sight lines for motorists in driveways. These concerns only apply to solid walls and hedges and yet open security fencing is still prohibited.
The philosophical debate of Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) is lost on the residents of East Hollywood who simply build fences as a last resort in their efforts to protect themselves and their families from criminal activity.
This past month has been full of community meetings in East Hollywood where the weary turn out with crime reports, citations, and letters of non-compliance in their hands. They bring their families and they tell their stories of children who can’t play outside, of families who live in fear, of a neighborhood under siege. And they ask for help.
At a Town Hall meeting this past Wednesday night, Building and Safety’s Frank Bush and Kim Arthur entered the fray and offered up the options from their perspective, explaining the process and the options. They are responsible for responding to complaints and the complaints come from the community and the fees and penalties are simply cost-recovery.
All true and all demonstrating the limitations of a complaint-driven city operating under the burden of cost-recovery, resulting in the uneven and inequitable application of the law and the revenue driven process that is destroying the middle class.
The LAPD was also at Wednesday’s Town Hall meeting, represented by Rampart’s Sgt. Munoz along with Senior Lead Officers from the Hollywood, Northeast, and Rampart divisions. That’s three divisions from two bureaus (West and Central) giving further witness to the “Who do you call?” dilemma that faces the residents of East Hollywood. They collectively advised the community on the importance of reporting crime but had no official LAPD recommendation on the benefits of security fencing.
City Council President Eric Garcetti was represented by two deputies who echoed Frank Bush’s claim that their hands were tied, that the real issue of fence standards was City Planning’s responsibility, and that the real solution was municipal code revision, a long term process.
The CD13 representatives rejected any short term solutions such as a moratorium on enforcement (dismissed as impossible) and a fence district (dismissed as impossible) and a waiver of variance fees (dismissed as impossible) which left the public with little recourse other than to ask for a payment plan for the fees and fines.
Missing from the Town Hall meeting was the City Attorney and the Mayor, both of whom share responsibility for the loss of the neighborhood prosecutors who should be working with the LAPD on abatement measures and gang injunctions in East Hollywood.
It’s no news to the community that the recent and anticipated wave of parolees means an uptick in criminal activity in the neighborhood, it’s already here and the increase in gang graffiti is the proverbial yellow ribbon.
City Planning may be responsible for the code that specifies the height limits for front yard fences and Building and Safety may be responsible for investigating complaints but none of it would be an issue if the Mayor and the City Council were to partner with the City Attorney and the LAPD in making the streets of East Hollywood safer for the residents.
Then the community could go back to the good old days when front yard fence debates were limited to the merits of picket fencing vs. ornamental iron.
Robert Frost’s poem “Mending Wall” is set in a rural environment but it also applies to the urban density of East Hollywood when the narrator quotes the neighbor as saying "Good fences make good neighbors.”
Variations of that bit of country wisdom appear in Norway (“There must be a fence between good neighbors”), Germany (“Between neighbor’s gardens a fence is good”), Japan (“Build a fence even between intimate friends”), and even India (“Love your neighbor, but do not throw down the dividing wall”).
But in East Hollywood, they’re fighting words.
This is a shame because East Hollywood is the most densely populated neighborhood in the City of LA and researchers at the University of California have tested the “Good fences” adage and discovered that it's true. An increase in personal space or privacy increases the likelihood of residents talking to each other, interacting with each other, and creating community.
Meanwhile, in Windsor Square, the deadline for appeals to the Mayor’s variance request was yesterday, resulting in a chorus of tepid “What are we going to do, he’s the Mayor!” objections and then silence.
As for the Mayor and his staff, they have not been seen at any of the neighborhood meetings in East Hollywood, they have not responded to any of the community concerns over public safety in East Hollywood, and they have not offered any solutions to the calls for relief in East Hollywood.
(Stephen Box is a grassroots advocate and writes for CityWatch. He can be reached at: Stephen@thirdeyecreative.net .)
The East Hollywood Neighborhood Council (EHNC) has embarked on a journey to revitalize Santa Monica Boulevard,
the final stretch of America’s Main Street, embracing the Route 66 legacy as an opportunity to fulfill its City Charter mandate to “promote more citizen participation in government and make government more responsive to local needs.”
David Bell, President of EHNC, kicked off the project by proclaiming “The EHNC is excited to support quality of life improvements in this under served community. By partnering with the business community, state and local governments, charitable organizations, and concerned stakeholders, we are able to leverage our efforts to create maximum impact.”
The East Hollywood Route 66 Task Force is committed to encouraging the local community to participate in the civic engagement process, first by identifying and working with the many civic partners, and then by embarking on community projects that address public safety, public works, public health, public education, and public service opportunities.
From the National Parks Service and its “Historic Route 66 Corridor Program” to LA’s Office of Historic Resources the Route 66 Task Force leverages the rich legacy of the past with the opportunity of the future.
The campaign kicked off with three components, the Economic Alliance, the Livability Initiative, and Civic Engagement.
The Route 66 Economic Alliance connects the local businesses and merchants from Sunset Junction to the 101 and has already raised the funds necessary to hire Chrysalis to conduct street cleaning, maintenance and graffiti removal. In addition, the Metro has partnered with the EA by steam cleaning all 22 blocks of the corridor, all as the result of leveraging a small investment by the neighborhood council into a sustainable effort.
The Route 66 Livability Initiative has embraced the Complete Streets standard and is engaging the community in the process of pursuing federal Safe Routes to School (SRTS) funding, California State Parks funding for a Route 66 park, a Caltrans Environmental Justice grant, and Historic Preservation funding.
The Civic Engagement component brings it all together with Town Halls and Forums that introduce the residents and business operators to their Federal, State, County and City of LA partners, from Caltrans and Metro to City Council and departments that include Street Services, Transportation, City Planning, and the LAPD.
Route 66 is neither the oldest of the longest stretch of highway in America but it certainly is the most famous. Tourists continue to travel to Chicago where they rent a car and drive across the country, re-invoking the romance of America’s Route 66 and reconnecting with the promise of the land of opportunity.
Built in the 20’s during a time of unparalleled social, economic, political disruption and global conflict, Route 66 opened up the west coast and gave people an opportunity to pursue their dreams in a land that is still famous for its great weather, economic opportunity, the entertainment industry, the tourist attractions, the arts & culture community and the creative energy.
In 1990, the U.S. Congress passed the Route 66 Study Act which formally acknowledged that Route 66 “has become a symbol of the American people’s heritage of travel and their legacy of seeking a better life.”
To the people of East Hollywood, that better life consists of a densely populated and heavily traveled transit corridor that moves lots of traffic at the expense of those who struggle to cross the street and the local merchants who watch the world race by, always on the way to someplace else.
Once memorialized by poets, serenaded by musicians, and celebrated on television and in films, Route 66 was decommissioned in 1985, forgotten by most and in danger of losing its unique place in history.
For East Hollywood, it was a simple complaint from a stakeholder about overflowing trashcans that prompted the formation of the Route 66 Task Force, resulting in a campaign that has resonated through the community.
As Route 66 Task Force Chair Armen Makasjian prepared for the latest Route 66 Town Hall he proclaimed “As a second generation business owner on this street, I am thrilled at the attention being directed at this vital stretch of American history.”
(Stephen Box is a grassroots advocate and writes for CityWatch. He can be reached at: Stephen@thirdeyecreative.net.)
Demonstrating that “cost recovery” should actually involve “a cost,” LA’s Recreation and Parks (RAP) Commission suspended the Community Garden plot fee rental increases after listening to a staff report that acknowledged that, in some cases, the City of LA didn’t even own or operate the gardens being subjected to the fees.
At issue is a Recreation and Parks “cost recovery” plot rental fee that was approved in July of 2010 by the RAP Commission as part of a 70+ page document that flew past the radar of LA’s gardeners until November when RAP staff announced the fee increase at a gardener’s meeting.
The compost hit the fan!
LA’s loose network of community gardens includes the Wattles Farm, operating in sync with RAP since 1975, the Ocean View Farms that was issued a permit in 1977, and the Orcutt Ranch which has been around for 25 years.
Some gardens, such as the Sepulveda Garden Center with over 800 plots, are quite large while others, such as the Rose Hills/Debs Gardens with 21 plots, are more intimate. Some gardens, such as the Expo Center/CSU Urban Garden, are operated as educational facilities while others, such as Little Green Acres Park, are closed to the public and actually operated by RAP staff and grow food as a service for the community.
While RAP’s proposed fees came under the guise of “cost recovery” the RAP staff report revealed that the proposed charges were being applied to gardens that have no costs to the City of Los Angeles. The gardeners at Ocean View Farms operate 500 plots on DWP land and already pay their own water, requiring no services from RAP.
Of the other gardens, one of them is located on Caltrans property and another is located on land belonging to the Army Corps of Engineers.
Through it all, it became clear that the City of LA’s relationship with the community gardeners was quite complicated and varied dramatically from garden to garden, begging the question, “What are the actual costs?”
Crickets chirped.
Most interesting was the survey of the services actually provided by the City of LA to the gardens. In some cases, RAP staff are reported as providing “edging, pruning, and blowing” services, a claim that was challenged as being at odds with the ethos of a community gardening.
At the end of the report, it became apparent that the RAP proposed/Commission approved/Gardener protested fees were inappropriate when examined on a case by case basis and even simply charging for water became complicated with plot sizes that vary from small as 32 square feet at North Weddington to a maximum of 1500 square feet at Little Green Acres.
RAP staff recommended a suspension of the previously adopted fee increases while the Los Angeles Neighborhood Council Coalition (LANCC) and the East Hollywood Neighborhood Council (EHNC) both called for the fee increase to be rescinded.
Commission President Barry Sanders wrapped the RAP review of community gardens under RAP “jurisdiction” by suggesting that this opportunity “may be ripe” to create an environment where gardeners can manage themselves. “Maybe the gardeners should rule the roost. That’s something that will require the gardeners to do the work, in terms of organizing themselves and paying the department for cost recovery.”
While the immediate discussion of community gardens may seem to only impact the 1500 gardeners who operate plots in LA, the larger issue is one of simple municipal operations and LA’s bureaucratic confusion over core services, cost recovery, and administrative authority.
It is imperative that this simple “cost recovery” issue be examined in the big picture and that the City of LA stop looking to balance the budget on the backs of the individuals it serves but instead focus on core services, operating efficiencies and an honest accounting of assets and liabilities.
(Stephen Box is a grassroots advocate and writes for CityWatch. He can be reached at: Stephen@thirdeyecreative.net. Disclosure: Box is also a candidate for 4th District Councilman.)
The Route 66 legacy of connectivity continues to resonate in East Hollywood, bringing the community together in a street revitalization campaign initiated by the neighborhood council and involving the Metro, City Hall, local businesses, residents and transit passengers.
LA's Santa Monica Boulevard section of Route 66 had long ago fallen victim to multi-jurisdictional oversight that resulted in CHP, the Sheriff's Department and the LAPD sharing law enforcement authority. Caltrans and the City of LA share responsibility for maintenance while the Metro and the City of LA share authority over the transit activity, street furniture, and bus stops. Local advocates, from property owners to pedestrians, have long complained of conflict and congestion, yet the process for pursuing solutions typically frustrated even the hardiest of community members.
All that changed when the East Hollywood Neighborhood Council turned a crisis on the streets into an opportunity for the rebirth of Route 66.
The Metro's Duane Martin and Councilman Eric Garcetti's Transportation Deputy Marcel Porras joined forces and committed to supporting the neighborhood council's newly formed Transit Task Force and their mandate of supporting transit as a tool for improving the quality of life for everybody.
Bart Reed of the Transit Coalition joined forces and offered insight in navigating the bureaucratic maze, one that involves the State, the County, the City, and then departments ranging from Transportation to Public Works to Planning to the LAPD to Cultural Affairs.
Throw in the LAUSD and it became apparent, one really does need a guide if they intend to cross the street.
EHNC President David Bell moved from a problem solving paradigm and embraced an aspirational approach, implementing a connectivity strategy that embraces the rich history of Route 66.
The EHNC Transit Task Force includes Historic Preservation experts, Homeless and Social Service advocates, Arts and Culture representatives, along with members of the neighborhood council's Beautification, Public Safety and Transportation committees.
This unique approach to problem solving starts with a commitment to creating an environment that is inspirational and aspirational, focusing on a goal that has a residual impact of addressing the specific problems that initially prompted a local business owner to cross the street, attending a neighborhood council meeting and asking for help.
This is just the beginning but every great journey starts with a single step and the East Hollywood Neighborhood Council's Transit Task Force is that step, this time setting in motion another Route 66 adventure that has the capacity to transform a community.
(Stephen Box is a grassroots advocate and writes for CityWatch. He can be reached at Stephen@thirdeyecreative.net. Disclosure: Box is also a candidate for 4th District Councilman.)
From the White House to City Hall, the 20th anniversary of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) was commemorated with speeches that fell on deaf ears in Hollywood as taxi cab operators refused to transport deaf tourists and a security guard choked a deaf shoplifting suspect for failing to comply with verbal instructions.
We've come a long way but we have a long way to go.
Media coverage of the 20th anniversary celebrations paled in comparison to the viral impact of a graphic video of an incident that involved two security guards from the Forever 21 store at Hollywood & Highland and two deaf brothers. As one security guard wrestles one brother into a head lock, another security guard blocks the second brother who appears to be indicating that they can't hear. Spectators can be heard exclaiming "You're choking him!" and "He's turning purple!" and "He can't breath!" while the second brother continues to signal and circle, kneeling at one point in a futile attempt to communicate with the security guards.
The details are disputed by all sides but have resulted in the indefinite suspension of the security guard from Forever 21, the arrest of the deaf shoplifting suspect, and claims of innocence from the deaf brother of the suspect. Hollywood & Highland Center Management accepts no responsibility for the incident but says "We do not condone the apparent use of excessive force." Forever 21, in a statement from the Marketing Dept., acknowledges "the security guard used excessive force, which is against our store policy."
Hollywood & Highland has at least six layers of enforcement authority on the property, starting with the local security guards, the Business Improvement District security (Andrews International), and the Los Angeles Police Department. In addition, the presence of the Metro Red Line Station within the complex results Metro Fare Inspectors, Metro Police, and the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department.
Now would be a good time for somebody to determine who is in charge and for that organization to produce a policy on communication between law enforcement and those who can't hear. This would also be a good time for the LAPD and the LASD to clarify any limitations on the law enforcement authority of the many organizations that employ security forces, from local stores to the BID to the Metro.
Hollywood's second shameful incident took place at Hollywood & Vermont's Triangle Park taxi stand. Enci and I were walking past the park when I noticed three women attempting to communicate with the operator of the lead taxi, gesturing unsuccessfully to a piece of paper and finally giving up and huddling together. Then I noticed that they were signing to each other.
It turns out that they were deaf tourists and their car had been towed from Hollywood to a Metro inaccessible tow yard in Atwater Village that closed within the hour. While Enci dusted the cobwebs off her ASL, I put out the call for help and within minutes Alfredo Hernandez of the East Hollywood Neighborhood Council arrived and transported our guests to the tow yard where he negotiated for the release of their car. Moments later Bechir Blagui of Hollywood United Neighborhood Council responded and I was reminded again that I live in the community of heroes.
The City of Los Angeles, through the LADOT, licenses and regulates approximately 2300 taxis so that passengers in taxis bearing the Seal of Los Angeles can expect to ride in an insured vehicle, inspected regularly by the LADOT and operated by a trained professional. In fact, the LADOT website even has a Taxi Rider's Bill of Rights although the only mention of disabilities is with regard to wheelchairs and service animals. No mention is made of the significant percentage of our community who are deaf or hearing impaired.
American Sign Language is the third most common language in the United States, surpassed only by English and Spanish. It's estimated that the deaf and hard of hearing population in the Los Angeles area exceeds one million people.
LA's character demands that we embrace and support people of all abilities and challenges, demonstrating our commitment to the Americans with Disabilities Act at every opportunity. From the training and certification of security guards to law enforcement to the licensing of taxi cab operators to the operation of mass transit, it is our responsibility to remove obstacles and barriers so that everybody may enjoy access and mobility.
The LADOT's Bikeways Department is busy installing Sharrows on Fountain Ave. in East Hollywood, drawing cheers from those who have waited years for any progress and jeers from those who think that years of debate and planning and preparation should have prevented the missteps that have already occurred.
Fountain Ave. is a street of variable width. There are three distinct areas between Western and Vermont with street width that ranges from 38' to 60' (approx) and with lane configurations that vary from traditional midblock to a variety of intersection treatments. This makes the LADOT's Bikeways Department's decision to place the Sharrows a consistent 12' from the face of the curb all the more dangerous. While the traffic lane on Fountain Ave. proceeds from one end to the other in a straight line, cyclists are directed by the Sharrows to follow a line that varies in distance from the center of the street, moving cyclists back and forth as the street narrows or widens. Urban Cycling education directs cyclists to pick a line and stay with it, communicating clearly to other road users with predictable behavior their intended destination. Yet the Sharrows are less than 7' from the centerline of the street in the study area and as much as 18' from the centerline of the street at the Vermont end. The Sharrows must be in a consistent position so that cyclists are integrated into the traffic flow, not inserted and then removed based on the variable curb position.
The Sharrow pictured above is placed 12' off the curb to the right but it's 18' from the centerline of the street. This Sharrow is in the right turn lane, a travel lane used by right turning traffic accessing a side street and positioning the cyclist in position to become the victim of a Right Hooking motorist who will pass on the left in order to turn right. The correct position for the Sharrow is to the left, closer to the center of the street, positioning the cyclist with through traffic, allowing right turning traffic to pass the cyclist on the right and turn onto the side street.
This Sharrow directs cyclists into the back of the parked cars ahead, or cyclists can veer to the left and enter the traffic lane as the street narrows, hardly an inspired engineering choice. Cyclists should be in the correct position in advance of this conflict point, the Sharrow needs to be moved to the left.
This Sharrow is also placed 12' off the curb to the right but it's less than 7' from the centerline of the street. The orange circles indicate that this is one of the "study" Sharrows and that the behavior of motorists and cyclists in this area will be gauged to determine the efficacy of the Sharrows. Studying the impact of the Sharrows that are in the travel lane and ignoring the Sharrows that are outside the travel lane is a study that will yield skewed results. This curious study may not gather much data on the impact of Sharrows on the behavior of cyclists and motorists but it certainly reveals a great deal insight into the LADOT's Bikeways Department's strategies, priorities, logic, and knowledge of urban cycling.
This photo is looking back at Fountain at an all too common variable street width. The flow of traffic on the single lane in each direction is smooth but the addition of the Sharrows directs cyclists to move in and out according to the width of the street. The Sharrows should position cyclists in the correct position in the lane, not just a uniform distance from the curb. Bad for cyclists, bad for the flow of traffic.
This photo demonstrates the importance of the "measure twice, spray paint once" mantra, demonstrating that even when the LADOT's Bikeways Department commits to placing the Sharrows a uniform 12' from the curb, they're just not up to the task. 12' is not always 12' the LADOT's Bikeways Department is doing the measuring. This is an easy enough mistake to make but on a bike, the misplaced Sharrows are easy to find. Cyclists know when they are moving back and forth and as we rode the street, even without measuring, we were able to pick the Sharrows that didn't "feel" right.
Painting Sharrows on the street without surveying the larger environment and determining the best place for cyclists results in Sharrows that engineer conflict, directing cyclists into potholes, over sunken water main caps, and along the most worn line on the street (the right tire track of the motor vehicle traffic). Simply adding the consideration of the best street surface would result in the Sharrows being placed in the center of the travel lane which is also the best location for controlling the lane. Even better would be to coordinate with the Bureau of Street Services (they installed the Sharrows!) and prep the street so that local resurfacing projects and the implementation of the Sharrows program could be complementary.
These Sharrows are in the center of the travel lane and they are supported by the R4-11 “Bicycles May Use Full Lane” Sign which reinforces the message that motorists need to hear. The correctly placed Sharrows are supported by the signage and together, they communicate clearly to cyclists and motorists the correct lateral lane position for cyclists on a travel lane that is too narrow to share side-by-side. These Sharrows are not in East Hollywood and the R4-11 sign is nowhere to be found on Fountain Ave.
The City of Los Angeles would do well to check its "We don't take direction from the neighboring villages!" attitude and start looking around at the more agile and innovative communities that are consistently beating LA at improving the quality of life for their residents, their road users, their businesses, their visitors and their voters. Long Beach spent 4 weeks planning their Sharrows project and they ended up picking up an Innovation Award from the Institute of Transportation Engineers. Manhattan Beach reportedly spent a mere $2K on their Sharrows but complemented that meager investment of funds with maximum professional implementation and fastidious attention to detail, drawing compliments from even the hardiest of transportation critics. Effective solutions do not need to be complicated or expensive, sometimes simply executing well is a significant step in the right direction.
As for Los Angeles, it's not to late to salvage the floundering Sharrows project. The best place to start would be to engage the critics, involve the constituents, draw in the advice of the Caltrans Bicycle Advisory Committee and LA's Bicycle Advisory Committee, and invite the community to participate in the process. Relying on advocates who are on the clock is the simplest way to get applause from the choir but it is hardly the formula for creative and constructive criticism. Most important, go ride a bike. Ride through Long Beach, ride through Manhattan Beach, then ride down Fountain Ave. The street looks a lot different when viewed from a bike.
The LADOT's Bikeways Department just blew their biggest opportunity at relevance by misplacing LA's first official Sharrows, revealing an LADOT adherence to the mythology of "Ride to the Right" cycling instead of the safer and more effective "Ride Where it's Right" mandate.
News that Sharrows were actually going down on East Hollywood's Fountain Ave. prompted tweets of celebration and blog posts memorializing the long overdue implementation of the simple street marking that is meant to direct cyclists to the correct lane position and alert motorists to the appropriate location for cyclists. Unfortunately, the news was tempered by the revelation that the LADOT Bikeways Department failed to place the Sharrows in the correct position.
The Shared Roadway Bicycle Marking is intended to:
1) Reduce the chance of bicyclists impacting open doors of parked vehicles on a shared roadway with on-street parallel parking.
2) Alert road users within a narrow traveled way of the lateral location where bicyclists ride.
3) Be used only on roadways without striped bicycle lanes or shoulders.
Fountain avenue is a narrow roadway with parking on both sides and one lane of traffic in each direction. The street is approximately 40' wide allowing for 8' of parking lane and 12' of travel lane. The Sharrows are positioned a consistent 12' from the curb face, meaning that the right edge is 10'4" from the curb and the left edge is 13'8" from the curb face. This position if incorrect for the following reasons.
1) The current position does not direct cyclists to the correct lane position in order to avoid the door zone. The correct position for a effective Sharrow would then be 8' for the parking lane plus 5' for the door of a Suburban for a curb face to Sharrow centerline distance of 13'.
2) The current position does not direct cyclists to the correct position for a non-sharable lane. At 12' in width, Fountain Ave. is non-sharable for a motorist and a cyclist, meaning that a cyclist should "control" the lane by riding in the center of the travel lane, in between the tire tracks of the motor vehicles. The correct position for the cyclist and for an effective Sharrow would then be in the center of the travel lane which would then be 8" for the parking lane plus half the travel lane of 12' for a total of a curb face to Sharrow centerline distance of 14'.
3) The current position does not alert motorists to the correct lane position of cyclists and instead communicates that on a narrow lane, cyclists belong to the right and out of the way of motor vehicle traffic. This is incorrect and dangerous, encouraging motorists to drive side by side with cyclists, even when there is no room.
While other cities have moved quickly to place Sharrows (a simple roadway marking that communicates correct lane position to cyclists and alerts motorists to the appropriate integration of cyclists into the traffic mix) on their streets, Los Angeles has taken its time, lots of time, so much time that one would think that the resulting program would be worthy of the years of debates, research, planning, fine-tuning and funding but such was not the case.
This past Friday the LADOT, the Bureau of Street Services, and the Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition were all joined by City Council President Eric Garcetti in what should have been a defining moment, the advent of a new era of traffic engineering for Los Angeles that facilitates and supports safe and effective cycling as a valid transportation choice but such was not the case.
Granted, lots of Sharrows were laid down on Fountain Ave., between Western and Vermont, directing cyclists and alerting motorists and demonstrating the unique City of LA support for cyclists that has prompted Bicycling Magazine to refer to LA as a city with "great potential for biking." Lots of promise but not much in the way of results.
LA's Sharrows program didn't happen overnight, it came into existence with a great deal of struggle, relying on community support, regional planning (SCAG) support, planning consultant (Alta Planning) support, private foundation (Bohnett Foundation) support, neighborhood council (EHNC) support, and city council (Garcetti/Rosendahl) support. All of which makes it harder to understand how the simple placement of the Fountain Ave. Sharrows could go so wrong, yet that's what happened and it is significant for several reasons.
1) It demonstrates the complete ineptitude of the LADOT's Bikeways Department.
2) It jeopardizes LA's nascent Sharrows program by engineering conflict and positioning the project for failure.
3) It establishes a standard for mediocrity that sets the course for the implementation of future engineering innovations.
4) It damages relationships, betraying the confidence of the City Council President, the Southern California Association of Governments, the Bohnett Foundation, the East Hollywood Neighborhood Council and LA's cycling community.
5) It squanders precious resources at a time when the City of LA can least afford it, all on a simple project that now moves forward with an inflated pricetag and limited efficacy.
The issue of the misplaced Sharrows is simple, Fountain Ave. is a narrow local street with on-street parking and one lane of traffic in each direction. There are abundant driveways on the short stretch between Western and Vermont, each one representing a conflict point that cyclists should avoid. In addition, the street has some potholes, nothing new in LA, but each one representing an obstacle that a cyclist should also avoid. The narrow width of the travel lane (12') and a cyclist's need to control the lane to prevent motorists from squeezing by on the left are all indicators that the correct position for a cyclist on Fountain Ave. is in the center of the travel lane, between the tire tracks of the motor vehicle traffic.
The LADOT's Bikeways Department has put cyclists in a tough position:
1) Ignore the placement of the Sharrows and "Ride Where It's Right" but incur the wrath of the motorists who expect cyclists to follow the position of the Sharrow?
2) "Ride to the Right" and give up control of the lane, getting squeezed by motorists on the left, watching doors on the right, all while invisible to motorists exiting the adjacent driveways?
3) Evaluate the LADOT Bikeways implementation of the Sharrows program and objectively measure it against successful programs, further alienating a city department that has long ago given up any pretense of benefiting the community it purportedly serves?
4) Lower the standard and accept mediocrity as the Sharrows program standard and prepare for the further implementation of ineffective and unsafe Sharrows?
There are many who will argue "You know, they don't look that bad!" In fact, the LADOT's implementation partners have already circled the wagons, looking for examples elsewhere of Sharrows that are even closer to the curb line. None of which is responsive to the basic charge, that the Sharrows are too far from the left and that they move the cyclist out of correct lane control position. The centerline of the Fountain Ave. Sharrows are 12' from the curb face, 11' is the minimum. At issue here is not the distance from the curb (although it is a problem) but the distance from the centerline of the street. The edge of the Sharrow is ~7' from the center of the street, just enough distance to allow a motorist to think that squeezing through is acceptable. It isn't. The best way to avoid getting squeezed is to control the lane which would put the cyclist down the center of the lane, not to the right.
Saddest of all is the simple fact that apologists for the LADOT Bikeways Department would consider offering the "Not that Bad!" argument for the Fountain Ave. Sharrows while a city such as Long Beach rallies around their battle cry of "The most bicycle friendly city in the country!"
Charlie Gandy, Mobility Coordinator for Long Beach and the force behind the award winning Green Lane Sharrows, says "If the street isn't 14' then it needs to be shared one in front of the other, not side by side, it's all about safety." Charlie refers to the correct Sharrow position as being in the center of the lane and believes that Sharrows should be an invitation to ride, not an instruction to get out of the way.
John Fisher, Assistant General Manager of the LADOT and a member of the National Committee on Uniform Traffic Control Devices and of the California Traffic Control Devices Committee, referred to the positioning of the Sharrows as a Bikeways Department decision but pointed out "From a maintenance standpoint, it would be more effective to put them in the center of the lane so they last longer."
David Bell, President of the East Hollywood NC, said "It would be great to celebrate the arrival of the Sharrows in East Hollywood but unfortunately, the failure to properly implement the Sharrows Pilot Project demonstrates the need for standards and professional oversight."
Michael Bluejay, in his excellent "How to Not Get Hit by Cars" article, says "if you ride to the right, someone exiting a parked car could open their door right in front of you, and you'll be less visible to motorists pulling out of driveways and parking lots, and motorists coming from behind may pass you way too closely in the same lane because you didn't make them change lanes."
Ron Durgin, President of Sustainable Streets and a LAB Certified Instructor, says a cyclist's first responsibility is their personal safety and that maintaining a confident and consistent lane position is an important technique for controlling the lane and for communicating with other road users. "If the lane is 13 feet wide or narrower, it's generally not shareable and you're best off claiming your legal right to the entire lane. If you give cars the space, the average driver will take it and then you get squeezed," he says.
Dan Gutierrez, League of American Bicyclists instructor and creator of the Cyclist View training program has developed extensive materials that all demonstrate that importance of good lane positioning as a basic tool for the most safe and effective integration of cyclists into the traffic mix. Dan calls for Sharrows at a minimum of 13' from the curb face and also considers the resulting lane position as a mitigating factor when positioning Sharrows. Attached is a Door Zone diagram that demonstrates 13' as the minimum centerline position for cyclists.
This simple event on the streets of East Hollywood is reminiscent of the story of the Scorpion and the Frog. In the tale, a scorpion and a frog meet on the bank of a stream and the scorpion asks the frog to carry him across on its back. The frog asks, "How do I know you won't sting me?" The scorpion says, "Because if I do, I will die too." The frog is satisfied, and they set out, but in midstream, the scorpion stings the frog. The frog feels the onset of paralysis and starts to sink, knowing they both will drown, but has just enough time to gasp "Why?" The scorpion replies, "It's my nature..."
The LADOT's Bikeways Department (the Scorpion) has a horrendously poor track record for the successful implementation of bikeways projects and programs in the City of Los Angeles, laying down 1 mile of bike path, 4 miles of bike lane and 0.5 miles of bike route per year for the last 15 years. Why would the cycling community (the Frog) trust Bikeways to properly implement the Sharrows program? Because, logic would dictate that Bikeways can't fail the cycling community without failing the LADOT. The public, like the Frog, was satisfied.
Yet, the LADOT's Bikeways Department delivered another stinker, just like the long overdue Proposed Bike Plan, just like the Topanga Canyon Bike Lanes, just like the dormant Bike Parking program. The LADOT's Bikeways Department is big on talk, bigger on attending daytime meetings, much bigger on reports and analysis and studies, but grossly disappointing when it comes to delivery. Based on results, often harsh but always fair, the LADOT Bikeways Department has a legacy of failure. "Why?" The LADOT Bikeways Department replies, "It's my nature..."
The LADOT's Bikeways Department is not part of Operations. It is part of Capital Funding. It's purpose is to fund, not implement. Look at the $1.25 million that was secured by Bikeways as funding for cycling improvements on the Fletcher Bridge. Once the money was awarded, the Bikeways Department went to work moving the money to a different bridge widening project. The cycling community of LA serves as a funding source, not as a constituent group served by the LADOT. Bikeways serves as a funding tool, it exists in order to fund its existence.
The first Sharrow installed in Fountain leads cyclists directly to the upcoming pothole, one of many that lie along the right tire track of the motor vehicle traffic, another reason to move the Sharrows so that they position cyclists in the center of the lane, not the right side.
At the end of the day, these Sharrows belong to the people of Los Angeles. So do the streets themselves. And yet, somehow, the LADOT's Bikeways Department, Alta Planning, and the LA County Bicycle Coalition have managed to work together for a significant amount of time, avoiding the public process on the actual placement of the Sharrows (not just the streets but the actual position on the street) and without the oversight of the Caltrans 7 Bicycle Advisory Committee or the LA Bicycle Advisory Committee or the public in general on the placement of the Sharrows.
When the campaign coordinator for the LACBC was asked how the decision on the location for the Sharrows was made, she said didn't know who made the decision on the location nor did she know how it was made. Is the LACBC simply hired as a bikewashing cover for the same old ineffective LADOT Bikeways behavior?
When Hermosa Beach put down their Sharrows, they spend about $2K. When Los Angeles put down three times as many Sharrows, it took an estimated budget of $100K. All that money spent on research and planning and preparation and implementation and yet the LADOT Bikeways failed to accomplish the three goals of a Sharrow. (Get cyclists out of the door zone, position cyclists in the center of a non-sharable lane, communicate clearly to motorists the correct position of a cyclist on a narrow lane)
Welcome to Los Angeles, the city where "almost" is not only an engineering standard, it's an acceptable performance standard for city staff and it's our current status as a Great City.
My name is Stephen Box. I ran for the City Council in March 2011 of Los Angeles, representing the 4th District.
Currently I work for the Department of Neighborhood Empowerment on Neighborhood Council Elections, communication and outreach endeavors, funding, advocacy, board retreats and campaign workshops.
Posts
