Panel OKs Signs on Darkened Street Lights

In a tactic opponents characterized as “spiteful retribution,” the Los Angeles City Council on Tuesday authorized posting signs on lampposts noting that the lights are off because residents declined to pay for the electricity.

Some 62 street lights have been turned off citywide after residents rejected paying the bills the city submitted for their operation.

“What I’m hoping is that this will only happen in one or two isolated situations before people realize that they need to . . . part with some of their dollars to keep the lighting on in their neighborhoods,” Councilwoman Laura Chick said.

The street light imbroglio was triggered by Proposition 218, which was approved in 1996 and mandated that government agencies let residents decide on new special services.

Jon Coupal, president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn., a sponsor of Proposition 218, denounced both the city’s decision to turn off street lights and the sign ordinance.

Los Angeles officials should fund the street light operations from existing property taxes, Coupal said. The sign ordinance, he said, is part of a political agenda to shift the responsibility for lights being turned off.

“I would call it spiteful retribution,” Coupal said. “They are trying to place the blame on someone else for their own bad policy.”

So far, 62 street lights have been ordered turned off after property owners in about 26 elections decided they did not want to pay the annual assessment to maintain the lights, according to Phil Reed, assistant director of the city Bureau of Street Lighting.

An additional 75 elections involving about 1,360 street lights have resulted in property owners agreeing to pay the benefit assessments, Reed said.

About 2,000 other street lights are in areas where the city still must hold elections. The vast majority of the city’s 240,000 lights were installed before Proposition 218 and therefore are exempt, officials said.

The bureau is still weighing whether to use its new authority to post signs on street light poles, according to Reed, who said the agency is considering concerns that the signs might be unsightly and attract vandals.

In addition to approving the sign ordinance, the council also voted Tuesday to approve turning off two street lights in a residential neighborhood of Balboa Boulevard in the Reseda area of Chick’s district.

The council action came after just two of six property owners on the block near Covello Street indicated they did not want to pay an assessment of about $37 per year to maintain the lights, while the others ignored two requests from the city to cast votes.

Chick said posting a sign on the light poles may get residents to realize the significance of the lighting question.

“A lot of people get these kinds of official government notices and they don’t pay attention,” Chick said. “I certainly think the sign is worth a try.”

City officials said the state’s voters set the rules for the assessments.

“The public clearly made its will known that it wanted to have a say in such fees and when the property owners vote down money to keep the lights operating, I think we are left with no other choice,” Chick said.