SIDEWALK PLAN A KILLER - Thirty eight years ago in 1973, the City told all the property owners, “You know all those sidewalks which are being raised up by the city trees in the median strip? Tell ya what we’re gonna do. We will pay for all the tree root trimming and the sidewalk repairs.”
Well, like a 10 year old kid who promises to clean his room, the city’s upkeep soon stopped and now we have over thirty years of un-maintained tree roots and sidewalks. According to the city’s own estimate, it has allowed $1.5 BILLION worth of tree and sidewalk repairs to accumulate.
The City knows how make up for its 30 plus years of neglect. According to the October 19, 2011 Bureau of Street Services report (link), the City will not only reject all responsibility for its failure to maintain the trees and sidewalks over the last 30 plus years, but it will also give the property owners 90 days to repair the 30 plus year backlog of neglect.
Under the proposed Municipal Code, § 62.104(b)(1), and (c)(2) and (e)(3), if an owner does not start to repair the thirty years of city neglect within 90 days, the city will do the work or hire its own contractors to perform the work and then charge the property owner a 40% administrative surcharge. If this formula were applied to all un-maintained sidewalks, the city would make a $600 Million profit rather than pay one cent to repair anything.
Yes, beware of City Councilmembers bearing gifts. Duh! Hasn’t anyone heard of the joke, “I’m from the government and I am here to help you.” So, all those raised sidewalks, which property owners could have fixed with a crowbar and by shaving down the tree roots, have grown into a $1.5 Billion nightmare because the city defaulted on its duty to repair.
There are some solutions to the city’s failure to maintain.
First, the city should abolish the CRA/LA no matter what happens in the Supreme Court and stop the giveaway of city money to billionaires. Tell Eli to give back our $52 Million and for CIM to give back the $30 Million for the rehabing of the Kodak Theater and the $17.3 Million for the blight it caused at Hollywood and Western, and tell Wesson to put the sales taxes from the CIM Midtown project back into the city’s revenue stream, and get the $1.4 Million over-charge on 1601 N. Vine back from Garcetti-Katersky. That would be about $340 Million in the first year.
Second, before the responsibility for any sidewalk or city tree is transferred to the adjacent property owner, the city has to provide the 30 plus years of maintenance to bring the trees and sidewalks into proper condition. Then, the adjacent property owner could be responsible for future deterioration.
Third, if the city refuses to rectify its 30 plus years of negligence, then a class action lawsuit should be filed requiring the city to set aside $1.5 BILLION for a matching fund out of which the City would pay for any repairs which it had not made in the last 30 years. This fund would encourage property owners to repair the trees and sidewalks as soon as possible.
Under this approach, the longer a property owner delayed in making the repairs, the more of the deterioration would be on his/her watch. This approach requires the city to pay its fair share and encourages property owners to act promptly.
Will we see any equitable solutions? Of course. Here’s the reality. The city is run for the sole benefit of mega-real estate moguls. Citizens are its victims.
Example: The October 19, 20ll report says that repairs in front of commercial property should be a priority. The CRA/LA mixed-use development at 5555 Hollywood Boulevard has three or four mature trees and when finished the sidewalk will be 20 feet wide. The City plans to cut down all the trees in advance of the proposed ordinance on the patently false ground that the sidewalk will be only 12 feet wide and cannot accommodate the trees.
Anyone who does not think the councilmembers won’t find a multitude of ways to exempt their political cronies from any regulation are members of the Rip van Winkle Club. After all, the developers have to make all those costly campaign contributions. We can’t expect them to also contribute to the common welfare.
Compare: A homeowner on Taft Avenue in Hollywood thought that the huge tree in front of his home was causing problems with the sewer so he drastically (and irrationally) pruned it. The city declared that the tree could not survive, cut it to the ground without giving the tree a chance to make a comeback and then fined the property owner $5,000.
Thus, for a CRA/LA developer, the city will cut down all the mature trees at the city’s cost, but if a homeowner over-prunes his tree, he is fined $5,000.
City to property owners: “Gotcha Suckers!”
(Richard Lee Abrams is an attorney in Los Angeles. He can be reached at: [email protected] ) –cw
Tags: Los Angeles, sidewalks, CRA, Community Redevelopment Agency, City Council
CityWatch
Vol 9 Issue 92
Pub: Nov 18, 2011
