At the same time, planners and elected officials in cities that were seeing their first gates or dealing with an explosion in their numbers expressed concern about the impact of gates. For many cities, the issue comes to prominence when an existing subdivision wants to retrofit with gates. The concerns range from the philosophical - the image of their communities and the message that gating sent about neighborliness, openness, and equity, to the prosaic impediments to emergency vehicle access and traffic circulation. Privatization of traditionally public spaces and services is a central concern. The separation of gated communities, their privatization of public space, also reduces social contact, weakening the bonds of mutual responsibility that are formed through the regular interactions of community living.
Many residents say they're taking care of themselves and so lessen the public burden.
In the growing number of places where gated communities are the norm, not the exception, this perspective results in a two-tier system those who use public services, and those who augment or replace public services with private ones. The result of these concerns has been that in the last few years, cities across the country have created policies to limit gates, in some cases severely, and many others have created policies to ensure that street patterns, traffic circulation, and emergency access are preserved. Others have seen the need to restrict gates when they would block or limit access to public areas such as beaches or hiking trails. Some cities use existing architectural design review mechanisms to limit gating or at least reduce the visual impact of barriers, walls, and gates. Sacramento and Contra Costa are among the Northern California cities and counties that have created policies and ordinances to regulate gating.