Court Rejects Appeal of Rules for Liquor Stores : Government: Owners of South-Central businesses destroyed in 1992 rioting had argued that city-imposed conditions for reopening were unfair.

To the distress of Korean American shopkeepers in South-Central Los Angeles, a raft of controversial city restrictions imposed on liquor stores after the 1992 riots withstood a state Supreme Court challenge Thursday.

In an order opposed by two of the court’s seven members, the high court rejected a challenge that had been mounted by a group of Korean American store owners and a public interest group.

The shopkeepers--required after the riots to take measures ranging from graffiti cleanup to hiring full-time security guards--had argued that the city’s conditions were so expensive to implement that only half a dozen of 175 Korean-owned stores that had been licensed to sell liquor were able to reopen.

On Thursday, they expressed bitter disappointment at the decision, which effectively exhausted their alternatives for appeal.

“Where is justice? This is like a second riot--this time in the hands of the highest judges of the state,” said Sung Ho Joo, whose South-Central liquor store was burned to the ground April 29, the first night of the riots.

“I should like to ask the judges in their lofty places to come down and see how much suffering we are enduring through no fault of our own,” said Joo, who stepped down as president of the Korean American Grocers Victims Assn. earlier this year because of poor health stemming from riot-related tensions.

But city officials countered that the new restrictions were necessary to control the safety and health hazards that had cropped up near liquor stores before the riots.

“This is an acknowledgment that the city has been fair and has been acting in the best interest of the city and its communities,” said Councilman Mark Ridley-Thomas, who has worked to reduce the number of inner-city liquor stores.

“It’s also a vindication of the position that hundreds of neighborhood activists, churches and others have taken--that there must be more local oversight of liquor stores in South Los Angeles.”

The suit was filed last year by three shopkeepers whose liquor stores had been destroyed in the riots. Soo Chun Cha, David Kim and Daniel Whang, along with the nonprofit Korean-American Legal Advocacy Foundation, had taken the city to court after the City Council passed a resolution blaming health and safety problems in South-Central on an “inordinate” number of liquor stores there.

At the behest of many of the area’s mostly black and Latino residents--who complained that easy access to alcohol in the area had fueled crime and antisocial behavior--the city issued a requirement that the owners of liquor stores that had been destroyed or badly damaged in the riots obtain new permits before reopening.

The decision, which almost exclusively affected “mom-and-pop” Korean American enterprises, meant that the store owners had to invest in substantial improvements in store security and sanitation. New requirements for garbage removal and lighting were imposed, along with limits on business hours in some locations, and a mandate that the new stores pay for full-time, licensed security guards.

The lawsuit argued that the new permits were overly burdensome, and that the city had gone beyond its jurisdiction in trying to regulate liquor sales, which are under the purview of the state.

But a state appeals court ruled in the city’s favor in March, saying that the permits were aimed only at controlling undesirable conditions near the liquor stores, not at any prohibition of liquor sales.

On Thursday, the owners’ request for an appeal of that ruling was denied a hearing. Only Justices Stanley Mosk and Armand Arabian voted in favor of a review.

Stephen L. Jones, a lawyer for the Korean-American Legal Advocacy Foundation, said the high court appeal was the owners’ last resort.

“I thought that this was not only an important issue, but we were correct on the issue,” Jones said. “This is a very sad day for so many people who are left without any legal recourse.”

Meanwhile, even those store owners who have switched to new businesses said they felt wronged. Many said they would be delighted to leave South-Central but want compensation for their loss of business.

“I can’t believe the court has done this to the riot victims,” said Young Soon Han, whose Crenshaw district market was set afire by rioters.

Han said she was trying to forget the riots and move on with her life, now that she has started a sandwich shop.

“But these people won’t let me forget,” she said. “They keep kicking us--even as we try to get up.”

Times staff writer Shawn Hubler contributed to this story.