Councilman Wesson Won't Budge on Barrier Dispute

• 

Details

Category: Community News

Published on Monday, 31 August 2009 22:19

Written by Dianne Lawrence

The much disputed temporary street barriers in the Western Heights neighborhood are closer to becoming permanent after a meeting between the Department of Transportation, the Los Angeles Fire Department and Councilman Wesson.

Despite 2 petitions (one with 142 names) from the community, concerns about "irregularities" and safety issues from the involved city agencies, and questions about the legitimacy of the original motion presented to City Council by his predecessor Councilman Ludlow, Councilman Wesson continues to dig in his heels and insist that all city agencies acquiesce and assist with approving and installing 2 permanent partial barriers at Arlington and 21st and 20th...and a gate at 20th and Manhattan Place, a block from Western and next door to local Fire Station 26.

The temporary barriers now in place at Manhattan Place have prevented emergency access for 4 years and counting while the Councilman refuses to enforce required deadlines. Councilman Wesson's decision effectively forces several city agencies to bypass the usual legal procedures and formalities. When one resident observed that it appeared as if a Councilperson could override code requirements and legal procedures, one agency source explained, "They do it all the time. A resident's only recourse is to sue them. They know that very few people have the means so they get away with a lot."

The permit will allow the installation of an electronic  gate at 20th and Manhattan Place, next to  local Fire Station 26. The LAFD has informed the Council office that they prefer other traffic calming measures but have been unable to influence the Councilman's decision. The temporary barrier (see photo) and eventual permanent gate have become a source of division and petitions within the community.

In 2005 a survey submitted to residents by the Neighborhood Association, indicated that a partial barrier (rather than a gate) at this location was the first choice of a clear majority of the responders. A partial barrier would allow residents to leave and emergency vehicles from anywhere in the city, to get in.  A gate prevents residents from leaving and allows only emergency vehicles from neighboring Station 26 to enter. Despite the results of the Association's own survey and requests from the community to include consideration of a partial barrier, the issue was not allowed to become part of any presentation to the community and a full temporary barrier was installed (with signs) while a permanent gate is currently in the process of being installed at that location. Disgruntled neighbors have consistantly moved plastic candlestick barriers, cones, railway ties, and other garbage placed to prevent cars from accessing through the signs.

There has been no determination since the installation of the temporary barriers, that a gate is what a majority of the community wants and 2 petitions seem to clearly indicate that it may not be. But ongoing efforts to have a partial barrier (like the two barriers placed at Arlington) be considered for the Western location have been dismissed by Councilman Wesson and local residents in charge of the project, all of whom live on the block the gate will be installed in.

Residents in control of the project must raise substantial funds, acquire the permits and incorporate their Association in order to acquire insurance and indemnify themselves against lawsuits. They are also committing current and future residents to the ongoing maintenance of the gate and the two other partial barriers on the Arlington side of the neighborhood. One of the previous leaders of the project has already moved out of the neighborhood. The barriers have also diverted traffic in front of a local school for handicapped children some of whom are blind and must practice navigating the streets in front of the school.

The residents who favor the gate claim it will prevent cut through traffic from speeding down their streets and that all efforts to find out what the community wants have been exhausted. Those opposing the gate dispute this position citing the original survey and the current petitions. They claim that preventing cars from speeding do not meet the legal criteria for installing barriers and there are safer ways to slow cars down or calm traffic. They also claim the motion approved by City Hall only allowed for landscaped barriers, not gates and did not meet the legal requirements it implied it had met. All legitimate reasons for further investigation.

Residents in the community are also wondering why Councilman Wesson has insisted on imposing his decision on a community he doesn't live in, rather than support a process for finding out what the community really wants, which when it comes to the issue of a gate versus partial barrier, many claim has not happened.

For more information refer to
"Letters" and "Eye On Wesson"