LAPD Plan to Place Active-Duty Officers on Film Shoots Pits Productions vs. Residents
Ed Fuentes
An officer in LAPD uniform works the shoot for ABC pilot "Limelight" outside 650 S. Spring on Monday.
DOWNTOWN LOS ANGELES — On Wednesday afternoon, LAPD will present its plan to place active-duty officers on film shoots, replacing the retired officers that have long served as traffic officers on productions in the City of Los Angeles.
The debate is likely to be heated. The film industry alleges that this change will increase costs and drive filming out of Los Angeles, and production companies are very good at bringing a crowd to meetings. On the other hand, there's no lack of comments here on blogdowntown criticizing the retired officers for a failing to control shoots and behaving improperly toward residents unhappy with a production's behavior.
On the industry side, a petition being circulated under the domain hollywoodincrisis.com alleges that LAPD's yet-unreleased proposal would double costs and decrease public safety.
The LAPD’s current proposal to effectively eliminate the use of retired LAPD officers, who have been a presence on productions for nearly 50 years, is currently the most disturbing. This proposal will reduce the flexibility of productions to accomplish their work, increase the cost to productions by nearly 100%, eliminate hundreds of retired officers who are familiar with the industry’s methods and operations, decrease public safety and generally be detrimental to production within the City of Los Angeles. LAPD’s alternative proposal, to change the uniform of the retired officers on film unit duty, making them unrecognizable as law enforcement officers, is equally detrimental.
An email circulating the petition quoted an unnamed production manager who praised the retired officers for allowing shoots to "bend the rules" contained in their permits.
The retired guys get it and have been getting it for many years. Also, isn't nice when we can hire our own guys that we trust and who will sometimes allow us to bend the rules when in need? DON'T LET THEM DICTATE WHO WE USE, NOT NOW, NOT EVER!
The experience many Downtowners have had with the retired officers has been less positive. In the comments on a September story about this upcoming proposal, "Downtown Owner" wrote:
I have been shoved off a sidewalk into the street by one of [the retired officers] for simply asking to speak to a production manager about the illegal use of a bull horn by a director next to my condo building. Countless downtown residents have been blocked from legal access to the sidewalks and streets.
I have watched rent-a-cops sit on their lazy asses, eating crew catering and talking on their cell phones while productions violate the law, park their production vehicles in the middle of the street, blast audio playback while a rap star's posse stands on the sidewalk lighting up joints and getting high.
Other comments echo similar complaints about the retired officers, that they do little to enforce permit conditions and are unresponsive to community complaints.
At an October hearing on the new filming contract RFP, Lieutenant Ray Garvin expressed LAPD's opinion on the shoot situation. "It's the department's position that the oversight at film locations is grossly inadequate," he said.
While much of the current discussion on runaway filming has been driven by ABC's "Ugly Betty" moving production to New York City, that situation can't quite be brought up in this argument. New York City requires active duty officers on all its shoots.
Wednesday's presentation will take place at a special meeting of the Council's Public Works committee. The proposal is the only item on the agenda.
Bert Green on March 30, 2009, at 02:15PM – #1
This is a pro-active move by the LAPD, and is not a result of community complaints. The LAPD is doing the right thing here. All industry in Los Angeles must obey the law. The film industry is no different. Considering that the film industry pays NO city business taxes, has a permit agency that will give them permission to do just about anything, normally legal or not, with 24 hours notice, it's awfully hard to be sympathetic to the argument that changes will drive filming away from Los Angeles. The film industry makes this accusation at the drop of a hat. It's like they are looking for any excuse to leave.
Whatever happened to businesses that are loyal to their city? Is it really too much to ask for a city to make sure everyone is playing by the same rules?
downtownlaguy47 on March 30, 2009, at 05:18PM – #2
Totally agree with Bert - The city needs to revamp the ENTIRE film permit process (meaning get rid of FilmLA and manage the process , and the money, themselves) as well as maintain the rule of law. I am tired of these Hollywood crybabies who think they are more important than the other industries in this town. Film production, and entertainment industry is not the top industry in LA - manufacturing is.
Film production should also be required to use a percentage of local businesses are part of the permit process. They come downdown, disrupt our lives and leave nothing in return for our patience. I once had a production manager tell me that downtown is Hollywood's backlot, and too bad about my complaints as I should have known what I was getting into when I moved here. - The arrogance of this industry is appalling.
Caryn Ho on March 31, 2009, at 11:51AM – #3
This morning when I walked out of my building, SB Main on 7th at Main, there were about 6 New York yellow cabs. I had to think for a minute where was I? Oh yeah, they are filming a pilot next door in the new SB Spring lofts lobby. The whole intersection of 7th and Spring looks like New York. There is the top of the subway entrance, New York cops and cop cars, hot dog vendors, people, steam from underground. It was fabulous. I started to watch for awhile and got to talking with one of the men who do lighting. He says he has been coming downtown working on location for over 20 years and can't believe how it's changed. For the better of course. I told him about this article I just read in the downtownblog and the change in police and he totally agreed with me. He feels that the retired cops are so comfortable that they are very ineffective. They tend to not do anything to keep certain types of people away and they have a lot of challenges to get them to do much of anything. Interesting huh? Even while I was there I didn't see them anywhere and there were all kinds of people coming through that they had to contend with on their own. So it appears that this will be a good move on the part of the LAPD and I totally support Captain Chow, in our area, in this endeavor and any othere he deems necessary for the peace and safety of our downtown community. Go Chow!
Ankur on March 31, 2009, at 12:14PM – #4
haha, spring and 7th looked JUST Like NYC this morning.
eva on March 31, 2009, at 10:23PM – #5
At the very least, as stated as the LAPD alternative, they should have their "Los Angeles Police" patches removed. They're not there to help the public, and should not be confused with those who actually do.
Alex Brideau III on April 01, 2009, at 10:06AM – #6
@eva: That's a good point. If they're not active officers, they're officially not law enforcement personnel, right? Perhaps a special FilmLA patch and/or badge could be used instead.
But overall I agree with the other posters. Actual LAPD should be used. It seems the fairest to all concerned.
Oscar on April 01, 2009, at 03:39PM – #7
bert and guy47 already said it perfectly but I'm going to say it again.
The film industry created filmLA by lobbying the city (you all know what this means: buying out their own policy) so they could grant their own permits, which basically makes them the owners of the streets of LA. They can do whatever they want whenever they want it and there's nothing you can do about it.
Ugly betty did NOT move to New York because it didn't had support from the city to shoot wherever they wanted but because they found themselves having to fly the actors to NY almost every other episode for establishing shots, so they decided it was in their best interest to move out.
Not every movie can be made about LA and as a director and/or DP it's a lot more rewarding both visually and creatively to shoot on location. So all that bluff about shooting in other cities it's just that BLUFF.
It's a lot "easier" to shoot in Canada, not to mention the fact it's a lot cleaner, but guess what they do not have the infrastructure nor the skilled workers and who wants to live in a damn cold place? Why do you think California is so desired? It's the southest location with BEACH! (I know, Florida too, but good luck shooting there for cheap)
You want to go live in Canada BE MY F'n GUEST!
Anyway, back in the topic. It's all a matter of ego, "we can close any streets you want ANYTIME Larry" quoting a location manager.
They DO NOT need to do that, it's just laziness and ego, it's simpler to close a street and not give a damn about disrupting people's lives than to actually figure out where to park the trucks and place the lights, takes just a little bit of planning, I know because I do work in this industry (and BTW if your location manager don't know how to do this I'll be more than happy to do the job).
The city should wise up and get the revenue by taxing them, make them hire REAL police officers to monitor them and make sure they don't go beyond what is allowed by the LAW and municipal code (yes, the LAW again) and stop them from blocking ANY lanes of traffic, whether it is a weekend or not.
I don't know if I said this already but in case I haven't "You want to go live in Canada BE MY F'n GUEST!"
Now here's a suggestion for all of you bloggers and interested parties. First off, anything that you video or photograph on the street is PUBLIC DOMAIN as long as you do not make a profit out of it.
Every time they're shooting in your neighborhood take your favorite pics and post them online, if they are using a bull horn get your own and start yelling out your window as soon as they call "action", everytime you see them blocking a street take a pic and post it in this blog, images make strong statements and we can use them to illustrate how they unnecessarily block the streets when they can use private parking lots and marked LEGAL parking spots but "why pay a parking lot when we can park for free in the street?".
We the residents can do all of this and more in an effort to send a message that if they do not care about disrupting our lives we do not care about disrupting their businesses, if we can cost them more money than the money they are saving by screwing us up they will comply and follow procedures not to mess our lives.
However I also have a reality check for you Downtown LA residents, workers and ocasional drivers, it is not the film crews who are disrupting your lives but the studios in their greed to save as much money as possible in every production, so we are against a multibillion dollar monster and will NEVER get it our way (the right way) so I'm sure I accurately speak the studio heads minds when I say "F'u DOWNTOW LA RESIDENT'S I OWN THE CITY AND YOUR SOULS".
downtownlaguy47 on April 01, 2009, at 05:24PM – #8
Oscar, good points - I just want to repeat that they should be required to pump some money into the neighborhoods where they shoot. Say 10% of their production budget must be used at local businesses, whether it means catering, hardware or other needs, they must hire or purchase from the neighborhood. I am sure a small, local downtown restuarant would love the chance to cater a film shoot. It is good for the neighborhood and makes them stakeholders in downtown's viability.
Right now, everything is bussed in from the westside and the valley. Areas that are more unlikely to have to put up with street closures for film production. It should apply to any neighborhood, so we would see similar effect wherever it may be.
nanorich on April 01, 2009, at 10:54PM – #9
Oscar,
You are absolutely right. But it is my experience that with few exceptions it isn't the union tv and movie production who the big jerks...because at least the TV shows which work down here know they will have to come back. The problem is the commercial outfits who have more money than god, and who have location managers who like to throw their weight around. Don't get me started as we move down the food chain to music videos. They are the ones who make the most noise and don't know what they are doing.
That Crisis website is a joke. If they don't have the budget to hire actual police officers, they don't have the budget to fly up to Vancouver...and put their crew up at the Travel Lodge.
It is a bluff.
And it is time these spoiled brats were reminded they they are working on public streets, not closed sets.
RLK on April 02, 2009, at 10:27AM – #10
I just received this email for a commercial shoot to take place in front of my building on Sunday 4/5. The one day a week we have free parking. Please note this language, "The company may begin preparations prior to issuance of a film permit."
Please name another industry that may begin a job before permitting. I read this as, rent-a-cops can block traffic, orange cones can go up and there will be no street parking. I have no voice in this matter. Argh!!
PLEASE BE ADVISED that a film production company is planning to film in your area. The production company is applying for all necessary permits and is required to abide by all city and county filming regulations. BEFORE OR DURING FILMING: The company may begin preparations prior to issuance of a film permit. If you have any questions or concerns regarding filming activity, please call FilmL.A., Inc. or the production company representative named below. You may also submit questions and comments to FilmL.A. by replying to this email. AFTER FILMING HAS CONCLUDED: Once filming has wrapped and the film crew has left your neighborhood, we welcome you to contact us and tell us how things went.
Alberta Clipper on April 02, 2009, at 11:39PM – #11
Oscar,
Let's do some math.
Real estate value for all of Los Angeles County is estimated at $1 trillion. Studio heads aren't much against real estate billionaires looking to get some value back into the double digit billions that are already in Downtown developments.
The arrogance of locations that have abused Downtown for decades has simply made this a matter of not if but when, nothing else. Land owners Downtown will follow the money and have quickly realized that residents are better for their banking than pestering film crews.
I really look forward to active duty officers being assigned film location work. It will be such a boost to the recruitment efforts of the LAPD to throw the possibility of extra overtime in Hollywood to attract the best and brightest professional police to Los Angeles.
This is a good change for everyone but film crews unwilling to abide by their permits. Location managers should value that their professional skills will be needed to file accurate permits. Since LAPD, not FilmLA, is the legal film permit authority for the City of Los Angeles, LAPD active duty will have the ability to enforce the permit and existing law on the infrequent use of private property for commercial filming. Film crews, particularly Downtown, should appreciate the presence of active duty officers for their safety amid the traffic of day or shadows of night.
The only crisis here is one of professional behavior and respect on all locations, not just the ones that appeal to the sensibilities of the crew or the retired officers pimping their old gear for personal profit.
There are plenty of multimillion dollar mansions in Bel Air and Holmby Hills for the retired LAPD to guard. Maybe, in some karmic irony, they'll get hired by studio heads to sit in their guard shacks. In short, if there is any pain endured by the industry, it is self-inflicted and unlikely to generate enough sympathy to stop this change.
Philip at FilmLA on April 17, 2009, at 05:17PM – #12
RLK – I work at FilmL.A. and if I may I’d like to elaborate a bit on prep. We actually just ran a short piece about film prep and strike in our March eNEWS that I invite you look at on our website. That article can be accessed here, so I won’t go over all of that same information again, just add some clarification.
Basically prep activity comes in two flavors, corresponding to how potentially disruptive it can be. Substantial prep would fit the activities just described: higher-impact activity involving lane or street closures for setup or traffic control. Substantial prep requires a City permit, which we coordinate with City departments. The fact that substantial prep requires a permit also means we know about it in advance, so we can easily put more specifics about prep (and strike) activity onto the Notices we distribute.
By contrast, the City doesn’t require a permit for minor prep, so this kind can get started even before the permit application arrives at our office. The reason why this can happen is that minor prep consists of activities that do not otherwise require permits if performed under different circumstances, such as when businesses choose to hang new signs, or when a homeowner hires a painter to recolor interior walls, or a neighbor takes delivery of new furniture or calls an electrician. In each of these cases, a work van or truck might park a short while near the location being serviced, but the community disruption caused is minimal and not out-of-the-ordinary.
Of course, filmmakers take a financial risk if they start prepping a location before they have permission to film there; hopefully, before they commit the time and money they’ve at least had a chance to speak with our Production Planning Team and discuss the likelihood that they will get the permissions they want.
I hope that this helps clarify what was intended by the language on our Notice. Please feel free to contact me if you'd like more information.
Urban Bruin on June 16, 2009, at 06:56PM – #13
Yeah! Long overdue. Let them dress and act like private security guards...because that's what they are.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2009/06/despite-hollywood-objections-lapd-wants-to-ban-offduty-officers-from-wearing-uniforms-on-filming-loc.html
Chin Thammasaengsri on June 18, 2009, at 09:59AM – #14
I read the resolution of this long running battle between the LAPD & its retired film officers. I am sure the pill is bitter to swallow, but the LAPD's claim does have some merit as, long ago, I was under the impression that officers working shoots WERE still active officers. As far as the uniform that's been proposed, I have to say that it really is WEAK. Black pants, white shirt, and a bright yellow vest? I know it's a far cry from the LAPD blues they've always worn, but I see it this way: a lot of these guys will take cues from the guys who escort funerals. Now most of those guys NEVER had law enforcement experience, but have the look (to some degree). Most of them look VERY close to the real thing in many cases and I see the retired LAPD guys maybe heading down that road.