Citizens Group Sues to Keep Streets in Neighborhood From Being Gated

Tenants living outside the Hollywood neighborhood of Whitley Heights, where streets are being blocked off by gates installed by homeowners, are challenging the city of Los Angeles’ legal authority to allow such gates on public streets.

A group called Citizens Against Gated Enclaves is seeking the removal of seven gates built across the streets and sidewalks of Whitley Heights, a 1920s-era hillside neighborhood just east of the Hollywood Bowl. The group consists of 47 people, most of them tenants living just outside the 200-home enclave.

The suit is believed to be the first to challenge city approval of gating public streets, said Leon Dayan, an attorney representing the citizens group. Dayan and the Center for Law in the Public Interest, which is funding the suit, maintain that the gates violate the California Vehicle Code by restricting access.

Deputy City Atty. Leslie Pinchuk said he was not familiar with the lawsuit and had no comment. But he noted that his office wrote a legal opinion several years ago on the legality of Whitley Heights’ request. “We felt they could do so,” he said.

The gates, expected to be operating within a few weeks, were installed after a 10-year effort by homeowners to gain city approval.

As of March, 221 areas in the city had applied for permission to gate or barricade their streets, said Bob Hayes, spokesman for the Department of Public Works, and 43 have been approved.

Jon Jay, 47, a founder of the citizens group and a tenant in the area for 17 years, said his group filed the suit because gates are unfair. “These streets will technically remain public streets at taxpayer expense, yet the public will not be able to walk on them or drive on them,” he said.

Hayes said residents of gated streets shoulder the cost of installation of barriers, pay the liability insurance and assume certain street maintenance costs.

But, Jay said: “After what happened in the riots, we don’t need any more gated communities. It just emphasizes the differences between the haves and the have-nots.”