Controversy Over Hollywood Farmer’s Market Raises Question: Who Owns the Street?

The Hollywood Farmer's Market last February.  Photo:##http://www.flickr.com/photos/20990388@N04/4338490433/##Alex de Cordoba/Flickr##
The Hollywood Farmer's Market last February. Photo:##http://www.flickr.com/photos/20990388@N04/4338490433/##Alex de Cordoba/Flickr##

The uncertain future of the Hollywood Farmers Market has inspired much energy and advocacy that food and street advocates in Los Angeles can be proud of. Market operator See-LA rallied allies and supporters. Farmers’ market patrons flooded City Councilperson Eric Garcetti with messages of support for the market. Garcetti in turn helped extend the permit and is trying to negotiate a solution that preserves most of the markets’ existing footprint and access. But the controversy also raises a question that in turn suggests a way to save the market and others like it.

Who owns the streets?

Or, in this situation, why in the @#*^ can a single adjacent business veto the continuation of a farmers market that is one of the cornerstones of social life, healthy food access, and community supported agriculture in Los Angeles?

To be even more specific, why is the Board of Public Works giving residents and business owners adjacent to proposed farmers markets, street fairs and other special events a quasi-property right in the streets that lets them veto temporary closures of public streets?

I’m speaking of the requirement, in section VI.D. of  the City’s Street Closure Provisions and Application Procedures. http://bsspermits.lacity.org/spevents/common/street_closure_codes.htm#6

A petition must be submitted indicating that occupants of at least 51 percent of the residences or businesses within the closure area have no objections to and support the closure. Petitions must be signed by the owner, manager, assistant manager, or lessee of the residences or businesses impacted by the closure.

It’s not because buying property adjacent to a public street gives you a legal right to use that street 100 percent of the time.

It’s not because such petitions are the only way to ensure that the interests of local residents are considered when the City receives an application for a special street-closing event. Section II of the Street Closure Provisions requires the Bureau of Street Services to consider the

A. Impact of the proposed closure on residents, occupants or business persons of the block.

B. Impact of the proposed closure on the accessibility of emergency vehicles into the closure areas.  

C. Impact of the proposed closure on vehicular traffic such as circulation, traffic movement and availability of alternate routes for traffic.        

D. Potential interference with commercial and business activities in the immediate vicinity.

E. Conditions existing within the surrounding area that, when occurring in conjunction with a street closure, might create a hardship or an unnecessary inconvenience to the general public or persons residing in the area.” So local interests are well represented in the decision making criteria.

City Council President (and Hollywood's Council Man) and former Councilman Michael Woo hangout at the Market.  Photo:##http://www.flickr.com/photos/greenlagirl/3996088750/##Green L.A. Girl##
City Council President (and Hollywood's Council Man) and former Councilman Michael Woo hangout at the Market. Photo:##http://www.flickr.com/photos/greenlagirl/3996088750/##Green L.A. Girl##

It’s not because all municipalities give property owners veto over proposed special events and street closures. In San Francisco, for example, all interested parties can come comment at a public hearing but no petitions are required. http://www.sfmta.com/cms/vclos/strclos.htm (Looking this up, I noticed that organizers of events in San Francisco with an expected attendance of 2000 + are also required to provide monitored bike parking. That sounds like a good idea for Los Angeles to implement).

It’s also not because the elected representatives of the City of Los Angeles have mandated that a majority of adjacent property owners be able to block street events. The City’s municipal code requires that

the result of petitions, required or otherwise {emphasis mine}, circulated in residential or commercial areas impacted by the event” “shall be included among all the relevant criteria used in reviewing applications for Special Event Permits.”

Los Angeles Municipal Code. Chapter IV Public Welfare. Section 41.20 d.2.K. So the City could give applicant the option to submit petitions, or require some petitions but nor disqualify applicants who fail to reach a magical 51 percent threshold.

I assume that the requirement is in place to avoid controversial events and to out-source responsibility for public outreach and discussion of proposed street closures from the agency to event organizers. It is usually a good thing for street event sponsors to go door to door talking to neighbors as a way to gain buy-in and spread the word about public events. But the threat to block the Hollywood Farmers’ Market from receiving a new permit shows that the mandatory nature of petition process can give neighbors excessive leverage when there are a small number of property owners fronting a street.

Hopefully negotiations will allow the Hollywood Farmers Market to continue in its current location.

Whatever the outcome, I’d encourage the Board of Public Works and/ or The City Council to change the 51 percent requirement to avoid any other important street events from being blocked by self-interested property owners. Here are some potential solutions.

  1. Eliminate mandatory petitions. Make petitions from residents/ businesses in the closure area voluntary rather than mandatory. Applicants will still be encouraged to get as many petitions as possible to demonstrate local support, but this would not be a precondition to receive a permit.
  2. Eliminate veto by a small number of neighbors. Eliminate mandatory required petitions from 51% or more of adjacent residents/ businesses requirement when there are ten or fewer adjacent residents/ owners in the closure area.
  3. Waive petition requirement for farmers markets. Eliminate the requirement to submit mandatory petitions from 51% or more of residents/ businesses in the closure area for all applications for permits for certified farmers markets.
  4. Expand petitions beyond the closure area to underline that the public at large ‘own the streets.’ Require petitions from 51% or more of adjacent residents/ businesses OR from at least 51 individual residents/ property owners/ organizations from anywhere who support the event/ plan to attend the event. Andres Duany’s suggestion that “You can’t confuse neighbors with the community as a whole” and that public participation for new projects should focus on a random sample of the community rather than on local residents, seems persuasive to me in the case of street events.

I’d also eliminate section II.F from the Street Closure Provisions and Application Procedures. It requires  “Verification that the applicant or sponsor owns, leases or rents property on the proposed block to be closed or can obtain and submit a letter of co-sponsorship from an individual who meets those criteria.” While a easier threshold than the petitions, in a street with one property owner  this too becomes a veto over proposed events.

Every year in the neighborhood I grew up in, a nearby residential street was blocked off for an annual street fair to commemorate the year their street had accidentally been left off the city map. There’s nothing wrong with a community taking pride in their streets or with a local voice in how streets are used. But this healthy localism shouldn’t be debased into a property right to vital public space. Eliminating property owners’ veto over street closings/ events would help ensure that public streets are used for the benefit of the broader public.

5 thoughts on Controversy Over Hollywood Farmer’s Market Raises Question: Who Owns the Street?

  1. Permitting is required in order to prevent tragedy and loss of life just like the Santa Monica Farmers Market.
    In that case the City of Santa Monica was found liable and neglegent for over 20 Million, current farmers market organizers have clearly flaunted public safety and continue to allow unsafe illegal traffic set-ups and use city equipment at tax payer expense without compensating the tax payers.
    If the Hollywood farmers market wishes to continue to operate I must do so following the law and enacting all safety provisions recommended by the NTSB, and LADOT ENGINEERS.
    Allowing this market to continue at the expense of Valley residents or those in San Pedro is inexcusable.
    Pay your fair share and do it safely without causing interference to those in the community is all anyone asks for.
    If an accident occurs such as Santa Monica, the organizers would simply walk away while the city would be on the hook for 20-50 million worth of liability.
    Not paving 100 miles to pay legal fees or closing 20 fire stations around the city so that the farmers market can continue to operate illegally in Hollywood is not an option.

  2. You write, “It’s not because buying property adjacent to a public street gives you a legal right to use that street 100 percent of the time.”

    On the contrary, there is a very substantial and legally recognized property right of access, and if the city interferes with it in a material way, such as by repeatedly granting street closure permits without the consent of the property owner, the city can be sued for inverse condemnation and will have to pay compensation.

    There is an excellent discussion of these rights beginning on page 19 of James R. Arnold’s paper on road and access law in California:

    http://www.arnoldlp.com/CREATING_USING_PUBLIC_ROADS_CALIFORNIA.pdf

  3. Thanks for the comments and information, admin and anonymous. Admin, I wasn’t suggesting farmers markets shouldn’t be permitted or that safety shouldn’t be a factor in determining location, but that petitioning local property owners should be de-emphasized. Anonymous, thank you for clarifying the owners’ right/ easement of access, which can be temporarily interfered with through street closures. Current city procedures do not require the permission of all adjacent property owners and some cities do not require permission by any property owners, so changing the permitting process in LA wouldn’t automatically open floodgates for successful litigation.

  4. What? Those are the comments? Anyway…

    This is a very well written post about a critical topic. Thanks for digging a little deeper into this bizarre bazaar situation. I have also attempted to figure out the reasoning behind this poorly thought out provision of the street closure permit process. Now that this change in law is exposing public access of streets to abuse and hijacking by private parties, what are the fixes that can be done? We are assuming that squelching public access to streets was not the intention of the law change. I like your suggestions for fixes, especially #4. The insanity of this particular case is how incredibly beneficial this street closure is to the local community and residents, yet this law, which should be supporting such community building events, is being used to kill it. Your #4 would help heal this obvious flaw in the permit process.

    I too call on the City Council to correct this faulty change to the permitting process for the sake of healthy communities everywhere.

  5. I think there may be some confusion here between the street closure approval procedure and the access rights enjoyed by property owners, which exist independently as a matter of state law.

    Changing the mechanics of the procedure–who is given notice, who is allowed or required to submit petitions and how many, what factors are considered by the decision-making authority, and so on–won’t change the basic fact that property owners have access rights, and if they are taken or damaged, compensation is required. Note that even temporary interference with these rights, if repeated or otherwise sufficiently egregious, could trigger a requirement for compensation.

    Obviously, owners who would benefit from street closures–those with shops and restaurants that could use more foot traffic, for example–are unlikely to exercise their rights, but it shouldn’t be a surprise that others, whose businesses are likely to be harmed by repeated closures, insist on maintaining the right to come and go that they bought with the land.

    The merits of the event for which the street is closed are irrelevant to this question. Access rights don’t magically disappear if enough people agree that the street closure is for a worthy cause. Indeed, when Caltrans builds a controlled-access highway–the defining example of a necessary, useful, and public purpose (as seen by the law, if not many Streetsblog readers)–they still have to buy access rights from the adjacent landowners or build frontage roads.

    Nothing the city might do will change, as to use of the public streets, that some voices are more equal than others: if credible objections are received from property owners whose access rights will be interfered with to an extent that they have a right to compensation, and no one is willing to pay it, the street closure won’t be approved, since the decision-makers know better than to do so and cause an expensive claim against the city.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

ALSO ON STREETSBLOG

Transportation and food Access idea 3: Regional Food Hubs

|
I’ve written about how transit could be improved  and sidewalk vending legalized to increase access to healthy food. Before food can get from stores and food trucks and carts to shoppers, it first has to be transported from farms, through distribution chains, to retail sources. This third installment in a short series on transportation and food […]

Fairfax: Ped. Friendly, Bus Friendly and Bike Friendly

|
Photo: Sir Baldilocks/Flickr (editor’s note: This is the fourth part of our ongoing series where residents defend the "alternative transportation friendliness" of their community.  While I’m still taking submissions at damien@streetsblog.org; I thought I’d share my thoughts on my community.  You can read previous posts on Claremont, Downtown LA and Mid-Wilshire for inspiration.) When my […]

Councilman Moves to Stop Sale of Hollywood Hills Lot

|
A battle is brewing between Councilman Tom LaBonge and the real estate company who owns land to the west of the famed "HOLLYWOOD" sign. Last week, Teles Properties of Chicago issued a press release announcing the sale. The agency, claiming an easement was obtained by former property owner Howard Hughes and that the city reneged […]