Let’s Get the Facts Straight: Sidewalk Repair is Not a Core Service of the City of Los Angeles

The first thing to understand about this topic is that the City's law around fixing sidewalks damaged by tree roots only applies to trees that it planted. Most trees in LA were planted by developers, so it's not the City's liability to repair damage caused by ficus and other non-approved trees. The City is only required to make the sidewalk passable, which they do with asphalt. They could follow the lead of most other municipalities and revert to state law, which requires property owners to repair their sidewalks within 30 days of receiving notice.  

There is an urban legend in Los Angeles that it's the City's responsibility to repair sidewalks, which has led property owners to refuse to take any responsibility for making this property improvement. This perception started in the 1970s when there was funding available to perform this work and has continued until the present day due largely by the actions of previous Mayors and members of the City Council who offered periodic funds to select property owners to replace their sidewalks, including the famed 50-50 program.   

A few years ago I worked with the Bureau of Street Services, City Attorney and others to devise a new strategy for assessing responsibility for sidewalk repair. The City Attorney's initial position was just to remove the language in the Municipal Code that was causing the confusion. This approach was rejected in place of a larger package that would explain not just why the City was not responsible for sidewalk repair, but who was and how the City might assist them. Discussion with real estate agents led to a change in preference for a so-called "point of sale" policy to a "point of purchase" one in which the buyer, not the seller, would be responsible for all repairs. 

The recent decision by the Mayor and City Council to allocate funds for the repair of sidewalks around City buildings is truly a smart move. This reduces the City's liability in the case of a possible ADA lawsuit, which has crippled efforts by cities like Sacramento to control their own infrastructure futures. The last time the City instituted a large-scale street improvement program came as a result of a lawsuit. That is what caused Street Services to roll out their highly effective and cost efficient curb cut initiative. It may come to that avenue again.   

The last several go rounds the Council has balked at taking the hard step of notifying property owners that they have to repair their sidewalks, as other cities such as Santa Monica and San Francisco have managed to do in recent years. Now, with the benefit of time and further reflection, I think that the approach being taken by Councilmember Krekorian is the right one, to focus first on getting commercial property owners to repair their sidewalks first and to untangle some of the legal issues that have prevented this issue from moving forward.  

One further complication is that the Board of Public Work's inflexible policy on tree removal makes it next to impossible for property owners to control their own fate if the tree that has destroyed their sidewalk is likely to damage them again within a few years. Any new policy aimed at homeowners should contain not just a legalistic change in who is responsible but also an acknowledgement that even if the City is not responsible for sidewalks it's policies around tree removal and root pruning play a major role in the process. 

As far as solutions, I think that it's important to note that a bond would require all Angelenos to subsidize a few property owners. What I would suggest instead is to modify the State-approved inspection program and have Street Services cover every block of the City, issuing bills to every property owner with a sidewalk that is not up to code. Include in that letter a notice informing the property owner that it is their responsibility to repair the sidewalk. Even if you take no further action at least you have made them aware AND you can later in court, should there be a trip-and-fall lawsuit, make the case that you informed the property owner of their obligation. This might very well work. 

{module [862]}
{module [662]}

This is a great topic for neighborhood councils to address, as most of us either own property or know of bad sidewalks in our area that we would like someone to repair. I told the head of Street Services during the Mayor's inauguration ceremony that I was going to vote no on the proposed property tax for street repair, largely because I did not think it was fair for property owners, such as myself, with sidewalks that are in good condition to have to pay for the replacement of those in poor shape. Luckily, this measure did not make it onto the ballot.  

If it should in the future, my hope is that any new revenues be offered at no-more than a 50-50 match, preferably far less. While the City does pay for the paving of alleys, which like sidewalks are privately owned and primarily used by the adjacent property owner, sidewalks are too large a budget item to try to pile on top of very real need for investment in our public streets. While there are those critics who say that if the City had its priorities in order it would have enough money to do all these things, the reality is that even with a "back to basics" mayor, sidewalks are not a core service of the City of Los Angeles and we all need to devise a solution that will solve this issue for good,.

(Erik Sanjurjo was a long-time policy deputy for various City Council members, staffing the Public Works Committee on three separate occasions. He recently was selected as a Neighborhood Council Budget Advocate for the Central Area representing Hollywood United.) 

-cw

CityWatch

Vol 12 Issue 72

Pub: Sep 5, 2014