Around the Halls: Anti-Harassment Ordinance for Cyclists, Bond Ratings and Sidewalk Talk
DOWNTOWN LOS ANGELES — Today is Monday, July 18. An ordinance making it a civil offense to harass cyclists goes to Council, as committees discuss the city's bond ratings and talk about sidewalks.
MONDAY: Public Safety and Budget and Finance are joined by the Ad-Hoc River committee in holding Monday meetings.
The city's bond ratings are the topic of CF 11-1240, which goes to Budget and Finance. A report from the CAO says that Moody's recently downgraded one class of city debt, but that ratings are otherwise stable.
TUESDAY: Council meets, as do three committees.
Sidewalks next to the proposed 1111 Wilshire development in City West would get a little wider with the passage of CF 09-3010-S1, which goes to Council. The motion would amend street standards to allow a 15-foot sidewalk instead of one that is 12 feet wide.
WEDNESDAY: Council returns, joined by two committees.
An ordinance that would make it a civil offense to harass a cyclist goes to Council as CF 09-2895. The ordinance came to Council earlier in the spring, but the new version adds running cyclists off the road to the list of forbidden activities.
Sidewalk damage would be required to be fixed when a home is sold under the "point-of-sale" model proposed by CF 05-1853, a motion that has rattled around committees for the last six years. It goes to Public Works committee. A related motion—CF 05-1853-S1—would remove an exception that makes the city liable for sidewalk damage caused by street trees.
An update on the city's street furniture program goes to Public Works committee as CF 11-0600-S14. The report-back instructions are interested in how the program is impacting city revenues.
Aaron on July 18, 2011, at 06:04PM – #1
An ordinance making it a civil offense to harass cyclists goes to Council.
How about an ordinance making it a civil offense to ride a bike on sidewalk at street speeds, tearing past wheelchair users without paying any attention to the lowly pedestrians around them? I can't tell you how many times I've nearly been hit by them on Wilshire in Koreatown and the Miracle Mile.
Sorry, I totally get that cyclists have every right to the streets in California, but this has gone too far.
downtown vibe on July 19, 2011, at 01:44PM – #2
I still have a problem with passing the cost of sidewalk repair on to the homeowner. If you look around 99% of the sidewalk damage is caused by street trees. The City claims to have control over its "urban forest". You have to have a permit from the City to plant a street tree. You need a permit to trim a street tree, and it takes a virtual act of congress to remove a street tree.
On top of all this 100s of thousands of those trees were actually planted by the City or required as a condition of development. Can we say "Ficus"?
That being the case, what is stopping the homeowner from suing the City for sidewalk damage caused by a City tree?
KJ1 on July 19, 2011, at 02:59PM – #3
downtown Vibe,
Los Angeles HAS paid damages for our Ficus Trees. There is a finite amount the City puts aside for these lawsuits I believe. Bad, bad choice for a Street Tree here. Trumpet Trees are a much better choice for DTLA-but they were only indroduced here in the 70's. Ficus Trees were being planted all over LA in the 50's.
Check out this article: (Bloomberg article titled, “Los Angeles Pays Damages as Ficus Jungle Breaks Up Sidewalks” July 1st, 2008 by Nadja Brandt)
-Katherine
downtown vibe on July 22, 2011, at 10:47AM – #4
Thanks Katherine,
That is my point. How can the City be liable and not liable at the same time? They just seem to be making policy to exonerate themselves.
Instead of just looking at the "potential" for trip and fall liablility, we should look at the damage to the home owner/property owner that has already been inflicted by the City.
Also, I think we as a community need to embrace the concept of removing the Ficus trees and replacing them with something more appropriate.
Please people... DO NOT chain yourselves to these trees!
BobbyD on July 23, 2011, at 06:07PM – #5
Remember that this push started as a result of ANOTHER cyclist harassing a cyclist who was killed the other day. Make the cyclists more responsible to make them more safe.