If Gates Are Illegal, Only Criminals Will Live in Gated Communities

CityWatch, Oct 28, 2011
Vol 9 Issue 86

RETHINKING LA - The City of LA’s recent decision to close a small Hollywood Hills cul-de-sac and to allow the residents to build a locked gate that excludes the public but provides access to the residents is under attack as a violation of state law.

Solar Drive is a small road that dead-ends above Runyon Canyon, popular to tourists in search of a great view and to hikers in pursuit of a less congested route to the popular canyon trails.

Residents have long complained about traffic and congestion but the recent move to close Solar Drive to the public was attributed to “loitering, littering, smoking and drinking” and the recent City Council approved solution was to allow the residents to build a gate that the Solar Drive residents operated and maintained.

Citizens Coalition of Los Angeles (CC-LA) and Hollywoodians Encouraging Logical Planning (H.E.L.P.) have both stepped into the fray with requests to “rectify the unlawful closure of Streets north of Franklin Avenue in Hollywood.”

Their lawyer has submitted a demand to City Attorney Carmen Trutanich, [link] pointing to the CA’s legal obligation to serve his client, the City of LA, with sound legal advice that includes warning the City Council of the illegal nature of the street closure and the resulting liability to both the city and the residents of Solar Drive.

The legal argument against street closures is built on a foundation that holds “the right to travel is based on the inalienable and constitutional right to Liberty. A restriction on travel is a restriction of Liberty. Thus, the state of California finds travel on public roads, including public stairs, sidewalk, cul de sacs, to be a fundamental right.”

The Hollywood Hills area is no stranger to debates over public access vs. public safety and periodically attempts are made to close streets with gates or to close stairways that connect neighborhoods.

The Whitley Heights Civic Association went to the City Council in 1985 for permission to build gates that would keep the public out of their neighborhood. They built the gates but Citizens Against Gated Enclaves (CAGE) sued them and prevailed in Superior Court and then again in the Appellate court, bringing the decade-long battle to an end with the removal of the gates.

The state of California’s Uniformity Code (CVC 21) limits the authority of local municipalities and states “no local authority shall enact or enforce any ordinance on the matters covered by this code unless expressly authorized herein.”

The rules governing the closure of streets are quite specific and state “local authorities may not place gates or other selective devices on any street which deny or restrict the access of certain members of the public to the street, while permitting others unrestricted access to the street.”

The fact that locals have complained of criminal activity in the area as justification for the restriction of the public from Solar Drive falls far short of the legal minimum and is unsupported by the City Council motion that referred to “loitering, littering, drinking, and smoking” as the security issues.

Nuisance misdemeanors hardly qualify as “serious and criminal activity” nor do they justify a violation of state law by the City of LA and the residents of Solar Drive. “Inconvenience, disturbing the peace, and potential problems” fail to qualify as conditions that would satisfy the CVC 21101.4 street closure conditions.

There are some that consider the Solar Drive street closure to be the opening move, one that sets up more street closures that will address the complaints of residents throughout the Hollywood Hills.

Recent community meetings have addressed the increasing congestion in the hills caused by tourists in search of the Hollywood Sign and hikers in pursuit of hilltop trails, all to the dismay of the residents who moved to the Hollywood Hills to get away from the crowd.

As the grumbling escalates and tensions increase and the call for street closures continue, the impact of the Solar Drive gate will be powerful and will establish precedent that can be used in other areas to close cul de sacs and stairways, a situation that many consider not only unacceptable but illegal.

(Stephen Box is a grassroots advocate and writes for CityWatch. He can be reached at: Stephen@thirdeyecreative.net.)
Graphic credit: LACurbed



Tags: Hollywood Hills, Solar Drive, Solar Drive Gate, Los Angeles, gated communities, street closures, City Council, Runyon Canyon, City Attorney, Carmen Trutanich, California Uniformity Code

Los Angeles: Liberty and Justice for … Some

CityWatch, Sept 16, 2011
Vol 9 Issue 74

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 .)