All over the world individuals visualize Los Angeles as a city filled with fame, fortune, and glamour. With this depiction comes the vivid image of the famous landmark, the Hollywood Sign. Erected in 1923, the sign was originally spelled "Hollywoodland." The sign was constructed "by Los Angeles Times publisher Harry Chandler as an epic $21,000 billboard for his upscale Hollywoodland real estate development." About three decades later in 1949, the Hollywood Chamber of Commerce removed the last four letters "LAND," leaving it in its current state "Hollywood." However the sign went through many obstacles throughout the years. Thanks to one of its most famous admirers, Mr. Hugh Hefner, who has had past ties with the famous sign, the sign still stands today. 
The sign represents and embodies a culture, lifestyle, and mecca within the world, therefore attracting many tourists. However, the increased number of tourists within the area has created a problem for nearby residents. Residents are complaining about "tourists clogging the narrow streets, often smoking and littering and creating fire and safety hazards." Many solutions were suggested such as, increased security, gating the neighborhood, and repairing the non-smoking signs. The residents have taken action and have "been erecting anti-tourist signs around town." They want to establish an "tourist free zone," with the hopes to eradicate and ward off tourists. I have been fortunate enough to view the sign from a close distance. One of my good friends had a home that was adjacent to the sign. Ultimately I would understand the frustration and concerns of the local residents. However, I immediately pose the question whether the residents have the right to impose regulations that prevent tourists from coming to see the landmark. The battle between residents and tourists will continue since the landmark is an iconic symbol of Los Angeles.
Who will construct a comprehensive solution? What key players will get involved? Who will have the upper hand?
This is a tough situation, and I think it's a good example of the age-old private vs. public interest balancing act. The tourists (either foreign or local) wish to experience the view of the Hollywood sign, which can be thought of as a public good in some sense. At the same time, access to this public good is conflicting with the local landowners rights to a safe and orderly neighborhood, free from the issues mentioned above (like littering and fire hazards.) The local government could be seen as a third stakeholder, with their interests existing in a state of duality. They have an interest in promoting tourism due to the revenue it brings in to the city, however, they also have a duty to protect the rights of the local landowners. I think the best solution would come from some sort of compromise, like still allowing tourists into the area but also imposing some of the regulations discussed above, like increasing security in the area, or maybe even creating a limit on the number of tourists who can enter the area at any given time and having set visiting hours - both of which could be enforced through some sort of gate system. However, it's still uncertain as to whether these would even be effective in practice.
ReplyDeleteIf people don't want tourists near their homes, then they shouldn't live near the Hollywood sign. No one is forcing these people to live there; it's voluntary. I feel no pity for people who complain of having too many tourists, since it's the tourism that makes that land have value. Safety hazards can be addressed just like in every other city, but limiting the amount of time or locations of public land that people can visit seems a bit extreme. If you don't like having clogged streets, don't live near one of the most iconic symbols in America. It's pretty simple.
ReplyDeleteI've heard of controversies with the Hollywood sign as long as I could remember, but I do agree with above posts that the homeowners have a choice to live there and that tourism is what makes the land so valuable. I do understand the perspective of the homeowner who feel that they are being inconvenienced and potentially put in danger by the added traffic and visitation to the sign. I also feel that limiting hours will be a way to make the best of both worlds. This makes me think back to a recent movie where two people were caught climbing the fence and sitting on the Hollywood sign, I wonder if more people have attempted to get even closer to the sign preceding the film. This is a great topic because not only do these kinds of issues arise in the Hollywood hills, but pretty much anywhere wealthy individuals live. They have more resources to battle such issues of this nature and that this issue has been brought to our attention.
ReplyDeleteInteresting debate involving both private and public interests. On the one hand you have the homeowner, whose privacy is sacrosanct and protected by the Constitution. On the other hand you have the zealous tourist who wishes to partake in a piece of Los Angeles history.
ReplyDeleteI have to side with the public. As someone who has (illegally) been to and touched the sign, I feel strongly that the sign is the intellectual property of the city of Los Angeles. No one person can own it, as it's likeness is parodied in every medium. As a Los Angeles native, I feel that the sign is partly mine - not just those who choose to live close to it.