Residents See Darker Side of Prop. 218

A small residential stretch of Balboa Boulevard will soon go dark, in accordance with a majority vote of property owners in the area, who declined to pay for the street lights.

The trouble is, in the view of Councilwoman Laura Chick, the majority was composed of just one voter, whose “no” vote has essentially flipped off the switch on two street lights.

“We need to make sure people really understand that if people vote no, their lights will be turned off,” said Kristin Vellandi, a spokeswoman for Chick, who represents the area and chairs the council’s Public Safety Committee. “There’s certainly a concern from the public safety end.”

Last month, the first street lights were turned off and removed from a Tujunga neighborhood, the result of an initiative passed two years ago. The measure, Proposition 218, gave property owners the right, under the California Constitution, to decide for themselves in many cases whether they would pay for some services, such as lighting streets.

To date, the Bureau of Street Lighting has sent ballots to 39 neighborhoods, asking whether property owners want to pay for the maintenance of their street lights, said Stan Horwitz, the bureau’s community services manager. Many of the affected lighting areas are small, often including only one or two street lights.

The Balboa Boulevard case is to be considered today by the City Council. Vellandi said Chick had asked to keep the street lights up for a month after the power is shut off.

The affected area in the Balboa case stretches along the east side of the boulevard from Covello Street to Sherman Way. Only one of the five property owners in the tiny area responded to a city ballot sent in August. That one voted against the lights.

Chick urged that the owners be given a second chance, so the bureau asked again, this time sending a letter warning the residents that a majority of those who voted had opposed the assessment.

“This will result in the removal of street lights from service, unless it is the desire of property owners who would be assessed to do otherwise,” the Nov. 5 letter said.

This time, a different property owner cast a no vote--the only respondent--leaving the official tally one opposed, none in favor.

“We haven’t gotten any positive feedback that says, ‘We want the lights,’ ” Horwitz said.

To keep the lights, the five property owners would have divided a bill of $321.67 per year. Based on a weighted formula, the share of the owner who voted no the first time would have been $37.16 annually, according to Horwitz.

The process may leave some residents who favor the lighting assessments literally in the dark.

Sara Singer, one of the affected property owners on Balboa, said in an interview she does not remember receiving either ballot. Then again, she noted, she has been in and out of the hospital during the last few months.

“I’ve been quite ill,” said Singer, 69, who recently had a leg amputated. “If I got it, and they asked me if I want to switch off the lights, I’d tell them, ‘Hell no.’ I mean, it’s a major street. We don’t want it dark.”

The city has about 130 to 140 areas left to poll, Horwitz estimated. About three-quarters of the neighborhoods polled to date have opted to keep, and directly pay for, their street lights.

The vast majority of city residents are not affected. In general, only areas where lighting was installed around 1996, when voters approved Proposition 218, are involved.