Residents urge action on nuisance businesses in Central City East; council moves case to PLUM and seeks online tracking

Residents and community leaders urged the Los Angeles City Council to act on longtime nuisance-abatement complaints against hotels, bars and liquor stores in Central City East, commonly known as Skid Row.

“My business is located next to three stores that sell alcohol … I have lost 60% of my business because of this,” said Edward Nassar, who identified himself as owner of Ian Trading Company, during the public-comment period. James Fowls, introduced himself as a long-time Central City East resident and said community members had collected photographs, videos and signed petitions documenting drug sales, open prostitution and violent conduct.

Reverend Scott Chamberlain, who identified himself as pastor of Central City Church of the Nazarene and chair of the Community Roundtable Services, said residents and agencies had submitted documentation but received no hearings. He asked the council to direct the zoning administrator to investigate nuisance complaints filed in 1998, hold public hearings within 90 days for those cases and provide a written progress report within 30 days.

Zeline Cardenas of the United Coalition East Prevention Project told the council the current revocation and nuisance-abatement process was inconsistent across the city and urged a citywide, accountable system. “The system we have right now is extremely arbitrary,” she said, adding that identical complaints have moved more quickly in some parts of town than in others.

In response, a councilmember asked that the issue be placed on the Planning and Land Use Management Committee agenda so staff from the zoning administration and the police department could report back. Councilmember Ridley Thomas announced a motion — to be entered with other members including Councilmember Rita Walters — asking the Planning Department, with assistance from the Information Technology Agency, to develop a plan to post revocation and nuisance-abatement case information on the Internet and to report to the appropriate committees within 30 days.

Council members and community speakers said the online tracking could increase transparency and help residents follow case progress. The council did not record a final vote on a specific ordinance during the meeting; instead members agreed to schedule a status report and pursue the online-tracking plan and committee follow-up.

What happens next: Council staff and committee chairs will schedule the matter for the Planning and Land Use Management Committee and the information-technology plan is to be developed and reported back to council committees within the requested timeline.

Ending: The public-comment remarks and the council directions set a near-term schedule for staff reports and committee review rather than an immediate regulatory action.