Annexation Issue Puts Neighbors in 2 Warring Camps

It once was a peaceful mobile home park where residents danced, held shuffleboard contests and contemplated their retirement years from patios with stunning views of jagged mountain peaks.

Now, rose bushes have been uprooted, neighbors aren’t speaking to each other and onlookers feared the outbreak of a fist fight when clashing factions met in May to testify at a Los Angeles City Council hearing.

The stir at the Indian Hills Mobile Home Village has been caused by a proposal by the City of Los Angeles to annex 1,011 acres west of Chatsworth. The annexation, which would be the largest in the city in 22 years, will go before voters living in the disputed area--all 189 of them--on Nov. 3.

Most of the voters--about 170--live at the 25-year-old mobile home park on Topanga Canyon Boulevard just south of the Simi Valley Freeway. Slightly more than a dozen others live in homes scattered along Santa Susana Pass and Iverson roads.

In the trailer park, tensions among supporters and opponents have run particularly high, residents say.

“It gets pretty bad,” said Myrl Combs, a fierce opponent of annexation who claims a pro-annexation neighbor recently slammed the door in her face when she tried to speak to her. “You can’t even say hello when you’re walking around the park to some of these people. They’ll ignore you or say nasty things.”

If the area is annexed, residents would receive police, fire, paramedic and other services from the city, instead of Los Angeles County. The city would also wrest control for land-use decisions from the county, widely considered to be far more pro-development. Utilities, however, would remain unchanged and wouldn’t cost the residents any more than they do now, officials said.

The park’s owners and a group of tenants opposed to the annexation contend that city stewardship would lead to increased costs for park management and larger utility bills for residents, even though the city struck an agreement with existing utility companies that would prevent rate increases. The opponents also contend that county services are quite adequate.

Supporters of annexation say the city’s rent-control laws would benefit the tenants more than if they stayed with the county, which abolished rent control in 1986. Because police and city fire stations are closer to the park, those services would arrive faster and therefore be better, they maintain.

Both sides maintain that the other side secretly plans to close the park and build a more lucrative commercial or condominium development on the choice 17-acre site. But then, both sides deny plans to close the park.

Meanwhile, the family that owns the park has been accused by some tenants and city officials of trying to use threats of eviction and rent increases to blackmail tenants into voting against annexation.

The owner also is accused by some of trying to bully tenants into signing long-term leases that, under state law, would prevent them from seeking protection from city rent control laws if annexation occurs.

At issue is a visually striking parcel of land bounded by the Simi Valley Freeway, Canoga Avenue, Santa Susana Pass Road and the Ventura County line, and a small section of county territory to the south. The land is vacant and privately owned, except for about 400 acres of state parkland.

City Councilman Hal Bernson, who would represent the area if it became part of the city, said he began the annexation movement three years ago because he wants the scenic area protected from high-density development.

About that time, the county approved construction of a large condominium complex, triggering Bernson’s interest in the matter, he said. If annexation is approved, city officials said they would allow the 290-unit complex--as well as a church and religious school that have already been approved by the county--to be built on the land.

After that, the city would strengthen zoning restrictions for the rest of the area to permit only low-density residential development. Commercial uses of the land would be banned, Bernson said.

“The county allows virtually anything to be built,” said Greig Smith, Bernson’s chief deputy. “It’s a very beautiful, unique area. It really is one of the last wild, undeveloped areas and it needs to be preserved.”

Several landowners outside the park, but within the affected area, oppose annexation, fearing their properties will lose value if they cannot be developed.

Sharp Divisions

Within the park, the annexation issue has sparked sharp divisions between tenants wanting to join the city and others vehemently opposing the move.

“We used to be a nice, happy community,” said Pete M. Nouguier, a retired construction company owner who built the park in 1963 and shares ownership with his son, Peter, and other family members. “Since this annexation started, this park has been nothing but a revolution.”

The tensions have at times escalated beyond mere words. Mobile homes have been pelted with eggs, a tire on a car belonging to the park manager’s father was punctured and two people were seen smashing a park lamppost with a baseball bat, then speeding off in a car, said park manager George Lange.

A leader in the anti-annexation movement found several rose bushes and flowers yanked from her garden, and another park tenant reported that someone uncapped butane bottles stored near his backyard barbecue so that the gas escaped, Lange said.

‘Real Craziness’

“There’s been real craziness,” said Barbara Zeidman, head of the city’s rent stabilization program. “These people, the tenants and the landlord and his representatives, practically got into a fist fight at the City Council hearing into the annexation. It was awful.”

The dispute is being played out against a setting of idyllic beauty. Scores of Western movies were once filmed where neat rows of trailers now sit along streets named for American Indian tribes. A striking backdrop of boulder-strewn peaks juts from the earth at stark angles. Wind chimes dangling from patios jingle in counterpoint to the distant roar of freeway traffic.

But residents say life at the park has been far from charmed since the annexation issue emerged. Both sides have spies who report the maneuverings of the opposition. Residents said they have been deluged with hotly worded, annexation-related flyers filled with contradictory claims.

A key concern of annexation supporters living in the park is that city rent controls apply to the residents there.

But exactly how many of the park’s residents would qualify for the rent protections is a matter of dispute.

Long-Term Agreements

Zeidman said about two-thirds of the park’s residents would be protected by rent control. The remaining third would not be because they signed long-term rental agreements after Jan. 1, 1986, when a new state law went into effect. That law exempts mobile home park residents who sign leases of a year or more from state and local rent control. The leases must contain provisions acknowledging that rent control would not apply, she said.

But the younger Nouguier said the city’s rent-control law would only apply to about 30 park tenants; the rest signed the requisite long-term leases after Jan. 1, 1986.

Zeidman accused Nouguier of trying within the last few years to coerce tenants into signing long-term leases that would exempt them from city rent-control laws. Many signed out of desperation, she alleged.

Tenants who balked at signing the leases were threatened with rent increases of as high as $100 a month, said resident Ken Smith, who favors annexation.

Some were told their rents would be raised every two months if they did not sign the leases, said Pat Lowery, head of the park’s residents’ association and leader of its pro-annexation movement.

Others were offered rent reductions of about $30 a month in exchange for signing, Lowery said. Whether such leases are valid will be determined by the city attorney if annexation occurs, Zeidman said.

The pressure has put some park residents, many of whom are elderly, “in a state of paralyzing fear,” Lowery said. “They are very afraid, very insecure. Where else are they going to go? There are no mobile home spaces in Los Angeles.”

Nouguier denied trying to coerce tenants. He said he offered about 50 tenants rent decreases of about $30 a month after they signed long-term leases, but said he did so only because the tenants told him that earlier rent increases were too high.

Those new leases allow Nouguier to raise rents 4% to 12% a year, depending on the cost of living, with additional 15% raises every five years for 25 years. City rent-control provisions have held annual rent increases to 4% in recent years.

The rental rates for trailer spaces range from $360 to $420, Nouguier said.

If approved, the annexation would be the largest for the city since 1965, when it acquired 3,017 acres of what is now Chatsworth.

The latest annexation effort was approved in January by the Local Agency Formation Commission, a county agency that oversees local government boundaries. But opponents forced a vote by presenting petitions with the signatures of 41% of the area’s voters. State law requires an election to be held when at least 15% of an area’s voters sign petitions opposing annexation.

Bernson contends that Nouguier’s real reason for opposing the annexation is his desire to develop property he owns next to the park. Park residents said Nouguier has spoken of developing the park itself.

Nouguier acknowledged that he would like to build a gasoline station, convenience store and other services on 8.8 acres he owns on Topanga Canyon Boulevard next to the mobile home park. But he said he has no intention of closing the park.

Nouguier accused Bernson of wanting to wrest control for the land from the county so he can shut down the park and approve development in the area. “Have you looked at a list of Hal Bernson’s contributors lately? There’s a lot of big developers,” Nouguier said.

On Friday, Bernson introduced an ordinance that would zone the land for mobile home park use if it is annexed. The City Council is to vote on the measure Tuesday.

For his part, Nouguier accuses Bernson of trying to enlarge his district at the expense of park residents. Smith, the councilman’s aide, scoffed at the notion.

“What’s the advantage of enlarging our territory? It’s just more area to worry about. More streets to fix, more constituents to get mad.”