The council’s decision regarding the Walk on Wilshire (WoW) at the July 16 meeting left the fate of the pedestrian and bicycle street segment hanging in the balance, with a potential expiration date of October 15 looming. The 200-foot-long WoW has been in operation for the past 18 months on a trial basis and was set to end on June 30. It aimed to facilitate and promote outdoor dining through the use of “parklets.” Despite its mission, only three out of seven potential eateries – Mulberry Street, Fullerton Brew, and SomiSomi – opted to participate, with Mulberry Street being the sole establishment to commit to the concept fully. The short-term nature of the pilot program may have dissuaded the others from making the necessary financial investment.

During the Council meeting on July 16, the issue of whether to continue and expand or shut down the WoW program was addressed. Staff members advocated for the first option, citing an informal survey that garnered over 500 responses, the majority of which supported continuing the program. At the meeting, 25 individuals voiced their opinions, with the majority expressing support for continuing the program. Opponents included business or property owners and a few longstanding government critics. A common concern raised was the negative impact of street closure on local businesses. However, no data was presented to substantiate this claim, leaving questions regarding the extent of the alleged harm caused by the street closure.

Some claims were extreme. The owner of a restaurant on Harbor, which is not adjacent to Wilshire, said that his business was hurting because the City cut off half the access to his parking. That restaurant backs up to a municipal lot with five entrances, the smallest of which had been closed. But even he did not suggest closing down WOW, just opening the alley to the lot.

Another said that dozens of cars used to drive down the street every day, but now the street is dead, so his coffee shop is not doing well. There are no traffic counts for Wilshire that were mentioned, and the front of his shop is narrow and nearly invisible. It is doubtful that many cars driving by would notice it. Councilmember Charles says that she goes there regularly and that it is usually crowded. An ad in the Observer would draw attention to his coffee shop more than opening up the street. (Also, fewer unnecessary 15-minute parking spaces on that block might help.

Thus, it went vague and unsupported suppositions and equivocations. Like the owner of the restaurant on Harbor, several business owners said that they would like to see the project succeed but that it had not been done well and was not succeeding. One even said he would like to extend it for the entire block west to Malden to include his business.

Opponents often argued that this was a good thing but needed to be improved. The initial implementation was heavy-handed, with large orange Jersey barriers blocking the bicycle route, and it looked like the street was under construction.

When it came time for the council to weigh in (Mayor Dunlap having recused himself since his father is part owner of Villa Del Sol), Councilmember Jung came out in full opposition to the project (a position he had held all along), stating that the government should not be helping individual businesses by closing streets. Councilmembers Zhara and Charles supported the implementation and recognized some problems so far.

Councilmember Whitaker, a supporter in the past, said that he was switching his support and spent 8 minutes trying to explain why, including problems with police and fire access (it is 200ft) liability, not a resounding success, government overreach, something the private sector should be doing, etc.  In other words, everything but the kitchen sink.

But it gets more curious: he said he was unwilling to pull the plug. The initial proposal was to continue the program for six months, but that was lost on a 2-2 vote. With some encouragement from Charles, Whitaker suggested keeping the program alive for 90 days. After some discussion, it passed on a 3-1 vote. But it is unclear what might happen in those 90 days: will there be an overwhelming outpouring of community support; will the (under-personed staff) come up with some brilliant new idea or plan, a plan currently missing?  It is not clear, nor was clear direction given.

IMHO, the real value of this project is not to support a couple of restaurants but to provide inviting communal spaces as a baby step towards building community. It is unsuccessful, but going backward leads to 200’ of the underutilized street. We have the start of something special and a chance to move forward.

And then there is politics. Ninety days, the decision will be moved to the last Council meeting before the November election when three Council seats are up. Whitaker is termed out, but his wife Linda is running against a strong Latina candidate in a heavily Latino district, which Bruce won by less than 3% last time against a non-Latino candidate.  Does he really want to vote against this popular project at that time? If the Council majority votes to end the project and there is a new majority in December, presumably, it could be brought back. Stay tuned.

Addendum: Councilmember Jung said that he did not like using the public right of way to benefit individual businesses. Neither he nor anyone else mentioned the sidewalk encroachment on the northeast side of Commonwealth at Harbor, now Mickey’s Irish Bar. Neither the council nor the staff are willing to act on that encroachment.

Wilshire in 2020 before the closure.

Wilshire during the pandemic when everyone wanted more outdoor dining.

The City made some bad decisions and ruined the vibe, but the community complained about the eyesore and it was removed.