Broken Windows, Bright Lights
Gangs from Hollywood are still gangs

by Thomas A. Guiton

One of the tenets of community policing is that the appearance of neglect in a community leads to a lack of community. Nuisances result in crimes. Crimes are inherently antisocial attacks on the community. Rebuilding community social structures requires forming relationships between the government services and the neighborhood as well as improving communication and respect within the neighborhood. Policies of the local government and police should not be destructive of the social fabric we are attempting to weave. A broken window means that no one cares. If no one else cares then why should I? If we don't respect the community, who will?

The bright lights of a movie crew are another indication that no one cares. If the community is already alive and vibrant, it does not need the Industry to add what little economic activity and culture that it brings. A movie crew is an indication that the neighborhood does not have the political clout to keep such nuisance activity out. The presence of a film crew is an announcement that no one cares, particularly agencies of the government. The nuisances of filming are allowed, or even encouraged, so other activity, some of it criminal, will be tolerated.

Let me take a moment to explain some of the mis-information about the conduct of location filming in Los Angeles. I hope that my experience and research may help to get some clarification. I must admit I still do not know what government agency actually has the authority or actually issues the permits. (The Special Events Section of LAPD seems to issue the permits after receiving a request from the Entertainment Industry Development Corporation/ LA Film Office [EIDC]. Permits are granted if the Section does not respond to turn them down or to make suggestions within four hours. There are about 200-300 permit requests per day. There is not enough staff to read all the requests. Most are granted without comment. This is a major lack of oversight and is echoed by a lack of enforcement. The Police Commission denies that it issues film permits. The City Charter suggests that such Use Permits are issued by the Police Department.) I am open to discussion. I need more facts in order to work most effectively to help protect our community from the dangers of location filming and to help mitigate the nuisances.

To be completely forthright, I am opposed to location filming in Los Angeles as it is now being done. I live in the Art District where 10% of all location filming in the U.S. is conducted. I have some experience of these abuses. If location filming cannot be changed, it should, and must, be stopped. Any prejudice I may seem to have against individual film companies and the Industry is a direct result of my experiences with these companies, the City, LAPD, LAFD, and EIDC. My position is based on my researches and experiences. The "myths of movie-making" are a result of propaganda, public relations, self-interest, conflicts of interests, and a lack of political and public will to look beyond the bright lights.

These "myths" are:

1. Location filming benefits our community. There is no direct benefit. This is a myth.

2. Location filming is safe. This is a myth.

3. Location filming is eco-friendly. This is a myth.

4. Location filming is legal. This is a myth.

5. Location filming is necessary in our community. This is a myth.

6. Film companies are leaving Los Angeles. This is a myth.

I will address these myths of movie-making a bit more deeply.

1. The City receives no direct payment from location permits.

The Entertainment Industry Development Corporation (EIDC/ LA Film Office) uses the money collected from permits to promote filming. Moreover, they can waive fees at will. The requirement of some liability insurance cannot be waived. As a lobbying body for the Industry, it has no regulatory authority. If a company pays the fee and has the necessary liability insurance, it cannot refuse to give the company a permit.

Film companies and their support companies often have no business licenses for L.A. State law caps their property taxes, and certain kinds of property are exempt from taxation. (There are also taxes based on the size of the production. These taxes are under-collected or not collected at all.) The Industry does not pay its fair share of the costs to the City and our community. Payments to the City and County are made for services provided by various (official) government agencies. These services are often provided at a discount. Location filming may cost the City or County more than they are paid for these services. (I think this is another subsidy for the Industry.)

There are specific, direct benefits to those that work for and sell to film companies. The City and our community may benefit from this commerce. Most of this trade does not include location filming. (I have heard figures under 1% for the percentage of location filming as a part of the Industry economic activity here in southern California.) Even less of this trade benefits our community- directly or indirectly.

Property owners who rent for location shooting benefit, but the community does not. These owners need not invest in their properties to profit. This does not improve the tax base. Adjacent properties are negatively affected as residents and businesses move away and/or resist paying high rent without the full, quiet use of their homes and places of business. Adjacent property owners are less likely to improve their buildings if there is less return on their investment. Most residents and businesses are not reimbursed for the nuisance, inconvenience, and loss of business. Location filming is, once again, a loss to our community and the City.

Even with these fees, the City has subsidized the EIDC for projects in the past. These projects help increase the number of low-paid workers available to the Industry. The idea of making more workers available for fewer jobs can only be supported if you wish to lower wages (and bust unions). This whole idea runs counter to the EIDC's claims that jobs are leaving Los Angeles for Canada.

The off-duty police officers required to direct traffic benefit. These badged officers have the same legal status as crossing guards. They are paid by the film companies and represent their interests. These "police" are not there to protect the public. Enforcement of permits is left to on-duty officers- who also may work for the same companies when off-duty. This conflict of interests is similar to the Council members receiving campaign funds from the EIDC when they are all Board members (of the LA Film Office).

Several officers that I have contacted stated that the off-duty officers reflect badly on LAPD. They are often not helpful or courteous, they spend lots time sitting on their motorcycles in the shade drinking coffee, leaving traffic direction to security guards or other crewmembers. Generally, they create a bad image of LAPD. Since they are not real policemen, they are often treated with the same lack of respect as they treat others. This lack of respect generalizes to the real LAPD. Official supervision of these officers is left to unofficial channels- the union and employing agencies. These, often "problem" officers, are armed and dangerous. (Thankfully, they are also lazy.)

2. Filming is not safe.

Not only do special effects companies transport explosives through our neighborhoods, these companies do no even know what is in the buildings that they are working in or around. The numerous storage facilities for explosives/fireworks, chemicals, and fuels are often ignored when seeking a location for a car chase or explosion. Several buildings have been set on fire by these special effects. Underground gas lines and aboveground power lines are also subject to damage. (Do not watch these explosions from under the older high-tension wires; they have come down in the past as a result of special effects.)

Buildings not safe for use as schools double for real schools- using real children. No liability insurance covers the loss of life that could result from an earthquake destroying such a structure. A fire in a set in such a building could also result in liability for the City and County. Neither is this safe for the surrounding neighborhood.

Crews often tell residents that we, as residents, do not belong here or that they did not know that people lived here. We cannot expect to be protected or respected if we do not exist. The EIDC repeatedly asserts that we have no rights as "residents" since we live in "Commercial or Industrial zones". (This "zoning argument" cuts both ways. Businesses that create nuisances in such zones are subject to specific regulations of their nuisance activities. These are described in the Municipal Code and State Laws. Once again the EIDC and Industry seem to act as though the rules do not apply to them.) These nuisances are destructive of the community. This is also an error not just in interpretation of law but also in fact. The area I live in has a "Residential Art Craft" overlay to specifically address the issue of live/work units being in an area of mixed-use structures. The last City survey concluded that the largest single use of space in the area was residential. Furthermore, even if we did not have these protections, State and City Codes should prevent such dangerous and nuisance activity under other Codes.

The street closures detour emergency vehicles when temporary structures are built in public thoroughfares. Often streets have not been opened for emergency vehicles because the sets could not be moved, explosives were already placed, or a helicopter was refueling. If the streets can be opened for these vehicles, they can be opened for us. After all, these are public streets not private property. (The City has already lost cases involving street closures.)

The lack of adequately marked detour routes creates problems for any driver that is not intimately familiar with the area- and the particular closure. Multiple closures often create even more, interrelated problems.

3. Filming is not eco-friendly.

All theatrical smoke that is not pure steam is suspect as toxic or carcinogenic. Studies done on smoke oils indicate neuro- and nephro-toxicity. These oils are also irritants, abortificants, and carcinogens. The chemical manufacturers of the ingredients in these oils do not want their products used in this manner because of manufacturer liability. (Material Safety Data Sheets provided for these chemicals by the manufacturer do NOT include the way they are used on sets. This is in contravention of Federal Regulations.) No license is required to operate a smoke machine.

The particulates dispersed into the air by explosions or car chases are also loaded with irritants and carcinogens. Many film locations are toxic spill sites or otherwise contaminated structures and areas.

There are no environmental impact statements for these film projects. The effect of the explosions, fires, and changes in traffic patterns are not studied and reported for public discussion. AQMD variances for smoke and particulates are not issued. Carpool plans seem to be non-existent. AQMD will not enforce pollution and noise regulations against the Industry; they cannot, as they express ignorance of these projects.

These environmental threats are destructive of the health and safety of the community.

4. Location filming raises many legal issues.

EIDC representatives have told several people who have complained about filming, "the EIDC issues permits to do things that are illegal" or "We issue permits to break the law." One official of the EIDC has said publicly, "We'll do whatever we want, whenever we want, wherever we want, and if you attempt to do anything about it, you will be arrested."

Before the City and County established the EIDC, the Fair Political Practices Commission made a policy study for the City Attorney of the possible problems and legal issues involved. Some of the problems I have already mentioned about the inability to enforce permits were noted in the study and City Council discussion. Other potential problems included conflicts of interest, because a significant number of members of the Board of Directors of the EIDC are City Council Members or County Supervisors. All Supervisors and City Councilpersons are on the Board. Certainly, the contract has not been adequately managed, especially surprising given the oversight by all council members.

Recently, the EIDC has claimed to be a "private agency". No one has explained how a private agency can perform an activity reserved for government. No one has shown how a lobbying body can offer administrative relief to those who complain about the conditions under which its' permits are issued and enforced. This lack of avenues of redress is especially problematic when no other agency takes responsibility for the enforcement of existing law and protection of the community from abuses of this "piratized" process.

Location filming in the City is conducted under Section 12.22.A.13 of the City Code. This section of the Code supposedly makes it possible for moviemakers to avoid public hearings and other regulations that apply to all other industries and individuals. It specifies the "infrequent" use of locations for filming in "all" areas of the City. Obviously, in the case of the area where I live the "infrequent" part is being repeatedly violated. The "all" part of the Code implies that " all areas equally" will be subject to the acknowledged hazards and nuisance of movie making. This is not the case. The Code Section goes on to say that filming will be "conducted at such times and in such a manner as to cause a minimum of interference with the enjoyment and use of adjacent property, consistent with the public health, safety, and general welfare". This is not the case. Filming on location is done in the manner most convenient and cost-effective for the film project.

In zones where manufacturing takes place, manufacturers are required to make special efforts to mitigate their negative impacts on their neighborhoods. Any excuse for the lack of protection for "the adjacent property" by the EIDC based on zoning is a double-edged sword. It calls attention to the lack of enforcement, unfairness, and failure to apply existing regulations. The Film Industry does not have a legal, practical, moral, or economic exemption from reasonable and equal regulation.

State laws protect the rights of residents. Some of these laws give residents rights that the residents themselves cannot sell or assign. As residents, State laws should protect us from many of the activities of film crews. (Existing sections of the City Code also should protect us from noise and other nuisances.)

The City does not have the required specific authority from the State to close public thoroughfares for a private purpose. Federal Court rulings also protect our right to the use of all streets. State Law and Federal Court precedents prohibit all street closures not for public safety or repair of the streets. The City has already lost several suits involving street closures. Its continued ignorance of its responsibility to keep the streets open is either negligent or willfully illegal. (Does this fit a legal definition of "conspiracy"? I think it does at least qualify as a conspiracy to violate the Civil Rights of all not involved directly in location filming. There is a pattern and practice of avoiding responsibility and not dealing with complaints. It is unfair to allow some to use the streets while other are excluded.)

There are a number of "due process" issues involved in the various "permits" that are used in filming. Among these is lack of public hearing before filming takes place and the failure of the city to provide any administrative remedy to the community. There is also a marked lack of oversight, of policy and practice, as well as the contract between the EIDC and City, and a lack of enforcement of any Special Condition and laws or regulation that should protect any community from egregious abuse. These are subject to litigation at local, State, and Federal levels.

5. Filming is not necessary in our community.

The Industry chose to sell the old back lots for their real estate value. Real estate is our largest industry. (The Film Industry wanted to run with the big dogs. It sold its' back lots and became a player in Real Estate. There is no reason for us to now bear the burden of its' business decisions.) It appears that we are directly subsidizing these investments by making our communities a substitute for the back lots. I do not believe I should be invaded and forced to live on a back lot. Under the current City Code, and policy, there is no area of the City where one can avoid this possibility. (And some minority areas have more than their fair share of locations. This might be cause for legal action similar to the suits involving environmental contaminations of minority areas.)

The present conduct of filming in the City is a convenience for the Industry- not a necessity. Many of the scenes could be digitally accomplished without bothering whole communities. Model building has been used for decades to do larger effects. Smaller crews could set-up and shoot quickly rather than using huge numbers of troops from multiple base camps. Surely in a 'creative' industry better methods could be found if it were not so easy and cheap to just get a permit to invade a community for a few days or even weeks. Street closures could be avoided by coordinating activity. No other industry commandeers streets, and indeed whole neighborhoods, for its exclusive use.

6. Filming is not leaving Los Angeles.

Statistics from the EIDC, itself, indicate an increase in filming. Of course, much of the location filming is pornographic or other low-budget commerce. When further concessions from the City or County are desired, EIDC statistics show a reduced level of film activity. Or more subsidies are requested when there are any adverse business developments, such as a strike or another kind of economic downturn. These periodic, normal fluctuations in the economy are not only affecting the Film Industry, they hurt all of us. But we should not grease the squeaky wheel when the other three tires are flat.

Filming is not leaving Los Angeles because of problems here. Most studies show that film companies go to Canada because of the lower value of the Canadian dollar. Some subsidies of filming in Canada may be in violation of International Trade agreements; local laws (and policies) will have no effect on those agreements. I can remember when the EIDC touted the loss of business to N.C., Texas, then and Fla. The Industry seems to go through boom and bust cycles. Every time filming numbers are down the Industry uses the data to get more concessions from the City. Our benefits do not increase as filming increases. For many of us, our conditions improve with the reduction of location filming.

As digital movie-making increases, I feel sure more filming will leave. This, too, has nothing to do with choices we make; it is the impact of technology. No amount of nuisance in my neighborhood will change these conditions.

From my discussions with Film Commissions and others in the Industry in several states and countries, I conclude that Los Angeles could easily be the most welcoming (and most lax) place to film in the entire world. Issuing permits after filming has begun and then protecting those companies from the complaints of the community and enforcement by the police of permit conditions is overly film-friendly. The repeated lack of notification and repeated interference with normal living is offensive, intolerable, and illegal.

The assumption that all filming has traditionally, or historically, taken place here is also mythic in its' proportions. How can we just pretend that there is a loss of something we never had? With the amount of filming we have now, scheduling the use of some locations and facilities is already a problem for filmmakers. If those facilities are public, we have even less access to "our" parks, roadways, or other facilities.

I hope that these mis-conceptions can be further debunked. I hope that I have made it abundantly clear that location filming is an obvious nuisance and danger. As it is being conducted, location filming is a threat to any community. The repeated imposition of unwanted guests is not normal, reasonable, healthy, or pleasant. The only community that is built is one of opposition.

The principles on which community policing are based are very different from the policies and principles of location filming. The bright lights attract problems for the area around the sets. These lights are an indication of a sick community, just as vultures overhead indicate something dead or dying.

I have heard from some people that they are glad for the crews to come. The Homeless Camps are moved to make room for the film crews. Fewer Homeless leads to a perception of a safer neighborhood. Additional security is placed around the equipment used by the crew. This is all well and good, but if a community allows such High Impact activity, it also appears to allow other antisocial behavior. (Also the Homeless soon return, often in greater numbers like moths to the lights.) How can LAPD move encampments for the EIDC and not for the adjacent businesses and residents? This is another example of inequities in service, support, and enforcement.

Fake graffiti leads to real graffiti. Noisy activity leads to other noise abuses (like the large raves). Too much filming in a particular neighborhood leads to unpermitted filming. A lack of parking enforcement leads to an increased disregard for parking regulations. Garbage dumped by crews means garbage left while driving through or brought into the area to be dumped near a locked dumpster (and further dispersed by the dumpster divers). Street closures lead to dumping of stolen cars, more in-car prostitution, and drug activity. Off-duty officers ignoring their duties leads to a conclusion that all the police do not care. I have yet to meet an on-duty officer who displayed such laziness and contempt for the community.

If the City through its' policies shows a disregard for the quality of life in a particular community, that community has a reduced possibility of a productive relationship with the agents of the City. Police, our servants and protectors, are made into the agents of abuse. Officers must explain to residents why they cannot stop film crews from keeping them awake, cannot stop a crew from blocking access to a home or business, cannot keep lights or smoke out of their homes, or cannot stop trespassers. Why must officers explain why they do not enforce the law equally? Most officers feel that we all have the same rights; no one is above the law- and no one is beneath its' protection.

The present conduct of location filming and location film permitting is a direct threat to any effort by LAPD to develop a coherent community-policing program. The community needs protection from location filming. If LAPD is serious about its' policy, it must address this problem.

Gangs from Hollywood are still gangs.