The Alabama Supreme Court has upheld a Mobile County Circuit Court ruling allowing a west Mobile neighborhood to seal off a portion of a public street, ending a legal fight that stretched on for nearly a year and clearing the way for the Airmont Property Owners Association to move forward with construction of a low fence blocking a stretch of Montclaire Way at Airmont Drive.
The high court issued its decision without a written opinion, affirming the lower court’s finding that the Mobile City Council acted within its authority when it voted in January 2015 to allow the closure. The council approved the request by a 6-1 margin at the time, with only Councilman Fred Richardson voting against it.
Airmont Property Owners Association president Eaton Barnard, a Mobile personal injury attorney, said the closure was never about keeping people out for the sake of exclusivity, but about addressing a persistent crime problem that residents say has plagued the neighborhood for years.
“Mobile will be safer because of this ruling,” Barnard said. “Crime will go down as a result. It was to stop or substantially deter crime taking place.”
Barnard pointed to a recent burglary in the neighborhood as evidence of the ongoing problem, saying the home of a young family was broken into in broad daylight and televisions were stolen before police tracked down the suspects and recovered the property.
Not everyone in the surrounding area supported the plan. Dr. Janice Morton Hunte, who served as the named plaintiff in the lawsuit challenging the closure, raised concerns in a letter to Mobile Mayor Sandy Stimpson and members of the City Council before the council’s initial vote, questioning how much crime the neighborhood actually experienced. Other residents in adjoining communities argued the closure would create its own safety hazards and would be a significant inconvenience for drivers who rely on the street to get around the area.
Barnard said he understood the frustration from neighbors who will now have to find another route, but stood by the association’s position.
“We don’t wish ill will to our neighbors,” he said. “It’s inconvenient for them, but it’s a bigger inconvenience for us.”
With the legal challenge resolved, the Airmont group plans to meet again within the next week or two to solicit new construction bids for the barrier, which will stand roughly three feet tall and include a pedestrian walkway and landscaping on either side of the street.
“It’s not going to be a Berlin wall,” Barnard said. “It’s going to be a three-foot fence.” He noted that the property owners association, not the city, is required to cover the full cost of the project as a condition the city attached to its approval.
Before the council ever took up the request, Barnard said the Airmont association had to coordinate with the Mobile Police Department, the Mobile Fire-Rescue Department and city utility providers to confirm the closure would not interfere with emergency response times or utility access for the surrounding area.
“Just because we do it, it doesn’t mean everyone else can do it,” Barnard said, adding that future requests from other neighborhoods will likely be decided on a case-by-case basis. “You cannot compromise the safety of anyone else. You have to allow the other neighborhood to get fire and police protection.”
Councilman Joel Daves, who represents the Airmont area, said the Supreme Court’s ruling has already prompted other neighborhoods to ask the city about similar street closures. He said he has heard compelling arguments on both sides of the broader debate over residential road closures — the need to keep traffic on neighborhood streets at levels the roads were designed for, balanced against the fact that all taxpayers help fund the public street network.
One neighborhood watching the Airmont case closely is Regency Oaks, where property owners have asked the city for a temporary closure of Andover Boulevard to conduct a traffic study. Regency Oaks Property Owners Association president Brent Barkin has said residents there are primarily concerned about the speed of cut-through traffic, and that any closure would still leave pedestrian and bicycle access open even if vehicle traffic is blocked. Some residents in that neighborhood have so far declined to sign a petition that would make the closure permanent, reflecting the same divide seen in the Airmont dispute.
The Regency Oaks request was expected to come up for discussion at a City Council Public Safety Committee meeting, part of a broader conversation among councilors about how to handle the growing number of neighborhood gate and closure requests moving forward.
Daves said the council will need to hear from all interested parties before settling on a broader policy or ordinance governing security gates and street closures across the city.
“We’ll have to see where it goes,” Daves said.