A Fortress Mentality Isn’t the Answer : El Niguel Heights Should Not Have Gates if They Will Limit Access to a Public Park

In centuries gone by, castle owners pulled up the drawbridges over the moat to keep out the interlopers. These days residents erect gates around their communities. In the Laguna Niguel housing development known as El Niguel Heights, a quarrel over whether to install gates has sparked a lawsuit. Opponents contend the gates would block access to a public park and effectively confiscate public property.

Although residents who want the gates say the park would be open from dawn until dusk, as the city requires, the city should not agree to this change. Even under the best conditions, gates and a security guard present at least a psychological barrier, a reason for a potential visitor to think twice and likely go somewhere else for greenery.

That is allowed when private property is involved. But a city park should be open to all without any hindrance. The provision of the park as part of this particular development committed it from the beginning to a certain degree of openness and connection to the larger community. It’s not fair to attempt to rescind that now. Residents ought to be able to address their legitimate security concerns through other means.

A key reason for the Laguna Niguel gates is property values. A director of the El Niguel Heights Homeowners Assn. said homes in a dozen nearby developments sell for higher prices than homes in El Niguel Heights, largely because they have gates.

Although a majority of the owners of the 250 homes in the development supported asking the city for permission to install gates at the two entrances, some residents disagree. One, Jim Davis, said the extra security is likely to cost more than the $50 a month estimated by the association and that gates create factions.

That is a valid concern, one that must be balanced against concerns about security and property values. Where public property is involved, the rule should be simply, no gates.