www.veniceartscouncil.org

By Jim Smith

The California Coastal Commission began discussing Venice permit parking around 4 pm, after hours of hearing testimony from Venetians who overwhelmingly opposed the scheme.

At first, I had trouble comprehending that the “square” looking Mark Stone was saying that he would oppose the recommendation from their staff to support Overnight Parking Districts (OPDs). Then another Commissioner joined him in opposition, then another. The room began to sway and tilt. I couldn’t tell if it was the “big one” or a cataclysmic political event that was rocking my world. The woman next to me dug her fingers (talons?) into my shoulder, as if she would otherwise fly off into space.

I suddenly snapped out of my delusions when Richard Bloom, formerly a Santa Monica City Councilmember, began to propose a compromise. He made a substitute motion that there would be six months of enforcement of an oversized vehicle ordinance after which the city would have to come back to the Coastal Commission if it wanted to institute permit parking. I thought, “please no, not another hearing.” But to my surprise, the other Commissioners weren’t going for it. Several mentioned that the city had provided no evidence that there was a problem with access that needed regulation to fix. No one had come forward to say they couldn’t get to the beach because of the RVs, they observed. There had been no parking study, as Steve Clare and others had been telling them for hours.

Rumor has it that Bill Rosendahl put Bloom up to making the “compromise” motion when he (Bill) saw that things were not going his way. In any case, Bloom’s attempt to torpedo the rejection of the OPDs failed as five Commissioners voted against it and only four voted for it. Back to the main motion to reject the tremendous pressure asserted by everyone from the state legislature to the city of L.A., Mark Ryavec aka Venice Stakeholders Association, the Pacific Legal Foundation, and miscellaneous homeless haters.

In the end, six of the Commissioners found the courage to stand up for access for all, including those who can only afford to live in recreational vehicles. The motion was defeated six votes to three. The courageous ones who voted against it were Sara Wan, Ross Mirkarimi, Mark W. Stone, Esther Sanchez and Bonnie Neely. All those voting against OPDs were appointed by either the State Senate or Assembly, except Neely, who was appointed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. Neely was the third vote in favor of Bloom’s substitute motion which would have allowed OPDs after six months. Those voting in favor of the staff recommendation for OPDs were all appointees of the Governor, except Bloom, who was appointed by the State Senate.

At the hearing, I witnessed my fellow Venetians rising to the occasion, and speaking more articulately and more brilliantly than I had ever heard them before. So many came and spoke. Some ditched work to be there. Those living in RVs risked exposure to the police who were watching and listening. We must make sure there is no retribution visited upon them for exercising their constitutional rights.

Many of them pointed out that nothing had changed since last year when the Coastal Commission overwhelmingly (9-1) voted this down. Others told the Commissioners that people were being arrested for being on the beach at night, just the opposite of access. Steve Clare explained why permit parking in Santa Monica doesn’t restrict access, while it would in Venice. Santa Monica has 5,500 parking places in beach lots, while Venice has only 1,727. At the same time, Santa Monica hosts three million beachgoers, while Venice is inundated with approximately 16 million per year.

There was the battle of the petitions. Mark Ryavec, who filed the lawsuit that kept OPDs alive, said he had signature of 441 Venice residents. A search of the petition on his Venice Stakeholders website showed that at least half were anonymous or name withheld. Karen Wolfe told the Commissioners that Venice Action, a group that opposes OPDs but supports an oversized vehicle ordinance, had collected 547 signatures. They were unfurled as she spoke. Peggy Lee Kennedy won the petition contest with 900 handwritten signatures and 300 online signatures against OPDs which were collected by the Venice Justice Committee and the Venice Town Council. She also said that her public records request turned up on 51 signatures in all of Venice from people requesting permit parking, and some of them were bogus.

The LAPD also got into the act with Captain Jon Peters saying that OPDs would be another tool in the police’s tool belt in fighting crime. He said that the current law that vehicles must move within 72 hours was not a good tool in their tool box because drivers can simply move a few feet. He was flanked while he spoke by officers Theresa Skinner and Peggy Thusing. All three wore their work uniforms and accessories.

Conservationist and former Beachhead Collectivist John Davis pointed out the irony of the police arresting and incarcerating people for coming to the beach at night when the coastal act is clearly in favor of access. Jack Ainsworth, the South Coast Deputy Director for the Commission responded that he completely agreed with Davis (then added “on this matter”). He said the staff was preparing a memo to city planning directors telling them that prohibiting access to the beach at night is not legal.

Several residents of the North Beach area, including Frank Lutz, Colleen Saro, Eloise Kong and Debra Gavlak, told the Commissioners that their parking problems would become worse if the OPD plan took away their overnight parking lot at Rose Avenue and Main Street. By putting in overnight meters, their parking costs could go from none to $700/month. This would force even more people to park on the streets which are already filled with cars.

Perhaps the speaker most appreciated by those opposing OPDs was Ruth Galanter. She showed how a city councilmember could be on the side of her constituents. While she is no longer in office, many expressed their wish that she was. She said in part,    “These are public streets. There is already a 72-hour law. The city doesn’t have the staff to administer parking permits. People won’t be able to come and visit.” She asked the Commissioners to “protect the ability of visitors to come to the coastal zone.”

Another speaker who was well known to the Commissioners was Pam Emerson, a retired staff member of the Coastal Commission. She told the Commissioners that OPDs were clearly a restriction of public access. She said, “In the 1950s, my family bought a Spartan trailer. At that time, trailer people were not considered upstanding citizens. I appreciate the life people live in RVs. I hope you will protect their rights.”

Also using history to good effect was Winola Smith. She told the Commissioners about her uncle, Irwin Tabor, who was Abbot Kinney’s driver. Kinney willed his house to Tabor, but when he died, Tabor had to move the house because Blacks weren’t allowed to live in that section of Venice (on the Circle). Smith asked, “So why are RVs being discriminated against all over again? These people need help. They could be anyone, your family or your friends.”

Other opponents of OPDs who gave a good accounting of themselves at the podium, included Juan Alcolar, Eden Andes, Lisa Aycock, Jim Bickhart, David Busch, Diane Butler, Ibrahim Butler, David Ewing, Mary Getlein, Ethel Gillette, Lisa Green, Ivonne Guzmán, Terry Hendrickson, Sue Kaplan, Mark Lipman, Susan Millmann Chris Plourde, Dana Schumacher, Jim Smith, Demetrius Tahmin, Mike Suhd, Linda Patterson, Holly Moser, Jataun Valentine, Patty Warivonchik, Lois Webb, Emily Winters and Joshua Xi.

The few speaking in favor of OPDs generally talked about their distaste for those living in vehicles. They included Lois Brower, Stewart Oscars, Michael Lamb, Shelly Burger, Phil Raider, Barbara Gibson and Marie Hammond.

Assistant city attorney Valerie Flores did a good job in distorting the facts of the city’s OPD case. She was apparently drafted to present the misrepresentations by her boss, Carmen “Nuch” Trutanich, who did not show up. Councilmember Bill Rosendahl, who seems intent on squandering the good will of Venetians on his adamant pursuit of OPDs, did not speak. He sat quietly for most of the hearing with Mark Ryavec as Venetians paraded to the microphone to denounce permit parking, and in some cases to denounce Ryavec and Rosendahl. The councilperson departed before the vote was taken. During a break, I asked him if he was getting an earful today. He responded that this was democracy in action. Yes, democracy can be a dangerous thing, as when Hamas won the Palestinian elections, and closer to home, anti-OPD candidates won most of the contested seats in the Venice Neighborhood Council, last April.

Rosendahl ultimately rejected the wishes of Venetians. In a written statement the next day, he (or ghost writer Arturo Piña) said: “I am very disappointed that the California Coastal Commission rejected a settlement proposal that would have given residents of Venice the same ability to regulate street parking as every other community on the California coast.” Yeah, right. It seems that the Coastal Commission is denying us the right to charge ourselves for pay parking and more tickets every time we turn around. Oh, the suffering Venetians!

Likewise, Mark Ryavec quotes himself on the Venice Stakeholders website saying the Coastal Commission action to deny OPDs was a “bait and switch” trick. ”Our only recourse is to remove overnight parking in Venice from this arrogant body’s jurisdiction by renewing our litigation,” Ryavec said.

Sour grapes notwithstanding, most of those who attended the hearing were jubilant at snatching victory from the jaws of defeat. In an age when politicians and their appointees usually have little or no backbone, the Commissioners showed that they would stand up for the people of California, no matter what powerful forces were aligned against them. In this case, they had to say no to the city of Los Angeles, the Pacific Legal Foundation, many of Venice’s landlords, real estate speculators and gentrifiers, not to mention distorted reporting in the Los Angeles Times and elsewhere.

Clearly those intent on driving the poor out of Venice will not give up. They will not say they are sorry for all the bad and untrue things they have said about those down on their luck. They will not try to work with the desperate and deprived. They will not even try to work with Peggy Lee Kennedy – who we all owe a debt of gratitude to for her unstinting determination and courage in spearheading this human rights struggle. It will take many more defeats like those of June 10, 2010 and June 11, 2009 before they finally learn that Venice is not Manhattan Beach and never will be.

My name is Mary Getlein. I’ve lived in Venice since 1971. One question I have is since people are being arrested for being on the beach at those hours, those nighttime hours, what’s the point in having coastal access?

The people who live in oversized vehicles and other vehicles are residents. You don’t have to be in a home to have a home. You have a home in your heart. I was homeless for 10 years. Do you know what being homeless is like? It’s like being a Jew in Nazi Germany. Everywhere you go, you are hassled. You are humiliated. You are put down. They take away your dignity as a human being.

People need help to get out of being homeless. It takes forever and a day to get out of being homeless. If you have a choice to do something good today or to do something wrong, why would you choose the wrong thing? Why? Is this a case of being the “good German” who knew what was going on and did nothing?

People are not homeless by personal choice. Heh – I think I’ll become homeless today. No, man. They lose their jobs. They lose their apartments. And you’re out there with the trash. And the police treat you like shit. They treat you like trash. They kick you from one trash can to the next.

We are put on this earth to help each other – not stick a label on someone, put them in a box and ship them away. Where are these people suppose to go? These are children of God. These are not cockroaches. We’re not here to be exterminated. We’re here to do the right thing today and not be “Good Germans!”

We are not going to sit silently by and watch powers that be round up our friends and the only crime is to be without a home. Where are you going to be 30 years from now when people talk about this? What are you going to tell your children, your grandchildren what you did to save people’s lives? We’re talking about people living in RV’s that are harassed by vigilantes.

As I speak, they come and break windows of RV’s. People who are staying in them are old ladies. They can’t get around without a cane. And these big, strong men come and break their windows. Because they don’t want to see a RV by the park. Well, they have nowhere to go. There’s no affordable housing here in LA.

This is our home. You don’t need a house to have a home. Home is where your heart is. My heart is forever Venice! We will not be moved!

• Albert Vera – Arnold Springer
• Vending on Ocean Front Walk – Della Franco
• Free Speech on Ocean Front Walk – Therese Dietlin

———-

Albert Vera

Dear Beachhead,

Albert Vera died last week in Culver City.

I went to his ‘commemoration’ at Holy Cross Cemetery on Slauson in Culver City.

I saw Sol Grammatico there.  He ran against Ruth Galanter in her first race for Council District 6.  He was from Culver City.  All the politicos were there as well, elected officials and their wives….and an honor guard of the fire and police departments, and the priest actually asked the people to give Albert Vera a loud and sustained applause for his service to the community.  Can you image that?  It was a Catholic ceremony.

Albert Vera ran the Sorrento Market on Sepulveda in Culver City, down by the mall there at the Richard M. Nixon Freeway appendage.

Well,  Anyway.

Albert Vera was an Italian and he came to California in 1947 as a teen or so,  after WW II. Then, what happened?

He worked hard.  Got Married.

He raised a family.

He became a small business man in Culver City.  He was successful. His neighbors liked him, and trusted him, and he gave back, and back, and back.!

Because he was trusted and loved by the community people  (we can say the ‘citizens’ which we in Venice cannot!) of Culver City, he was elected Mayor three times in popular votes of the people.  He was trusted and loved and respected.  A very simple immigrant.

And then after his service he went back to his Sorrento Market:  Where he worked with his partner and comrade Ursala until he was suddenly struck by a heart attack and died right there and then in his home. He was about 75.

Ursala had just hours before been admitted to the hospital with a high fever.  She is really ill with a kidney problem.

I knew Albert Vera from the Sorrento Market where I often shopped —for the best of everything and service etc—great, great bread and fresh pasta for example.

I knew his name from the campaign signs during election days when driving through Culver City.

I was always glad to see him and Ursala at the Sorrento Market.  What agenerous, wonderful, honest, concerned and caring Man.

Arnold  Springer

———-

Vending on Ocean Front Walk

Dear Beachhead

I am writing about the terrible situation the crafts people of the OFW are finding themselves in and it is getting worse as the summer season begins.

There are TOO MANY COMMERCIAL VENDORS taking up vital space on the OFW. The ordinance is not being enforced, vendors are not asked to display their work to Recs and Parks before getting a permit, anyone and any age can receive a permit. It is so sad to see over 200 real artists not receive a permit to set up while there are endless tables selling plastic factory-made goods that takes away the authenticity and uniqueness of Venice Beach.

Why can’t the old rule of “MAKE YOUR ART ON THE SPOT” be enforced in some or most designated areas? It has always been a solution to some of these problems.

The main issue with the lottery these days is that people are just joining the lottery to get a space in order to “sell it” to the highest bidder. Also, you now have vendors paying people to join the lottery to ensure they get a space. You also have several (or more) family members joining the lottery even though half of them do not participate on the OFW.

There has to be more control over the permit and lottery system, before Venice Beach becomes just another swap meet. The lottery has long been a corrupt system that does not protect the rights of the artists of the OFW. I encourage fellow Venetians, artisans and other concerned members of the public to write to Bill Rosendahl at bill.rosendahl @lacity.org and tell him of your concerns. Help Save Venice Beach!

Della Franco

———-

Free Speech on Ocean Front Walk

Dear Beachhead,

On Sunday, June 20, Dave Bradt (Mr. Anti-circumcision), Norman and Stella (Urantia), and I (general political commentary) were set up in the Sunset Pagoda area, as we had been led to believe by second hand reports from LAPD officers on the Pacific detail that we had every legal right to do. Our displays were compact and did not impede any traffic into, out of, or through the Pagoda area.

Early in that afternoon, LAPD officer Quesada approached Dave Bradt as I watched from the other side of the pagoda area.

After a few minutes of observed discussion between Officer Quesada and Dave, I joined the exchange, explaining that I was part of the group who had opted to do this. One of our justifications for being in the Pagoda was that the eight (8) black spaces purportedly set aside for first amendment people like us (LAMC42.15 section B (5)) were all occupied by aggressive commercial vendors of various inclinations and that we had been informed we could set up in the Pagodas.

Officer Quesada, while being very sympathetic to our plight, told us that we had been misinformed. We could NOT set up in the Pagodas. If we were allowed to be there, soon many others would be vying for the spaces. She told us we needed to go to the Recreation and Parks Office on Windward Plaza and ask them to make those black spaces available to us as LAPD had nothing to do with space allocation and usage. I told her I was willing to move but would not do so until my partners returned from a rest room break; the woman is 91 years old and I was not about to abandon her without telling her what was going on.

Shortly after, Officer Quesada returned to our little group in the Pagoda and told us she had found us a space but we needed to move there right away. Dave and I gathered what we could of our displays and took them to the space Officer Quesada had cleared of an illegal vendor for us. After moving all our stuff, Dave and I walked the Boardwalk to the Rec and Parks office to request that the people there remove the illegal vendors in the black spaces, with Dave taking pictures of the black spaces on the way.

We hoped to document the evidence of unacceptable commercial vending in those spaces. At space P-28 we encountered threats and hostility. We later learned that one of the individuals involved threatened to “kill” us.

When we got to the the Rec and Parks office, it was closed and a message on the door gave the hours (for permit purchase) as Mon-Sat 12noon to 4pm.

We returned to our new space and reorganized our prematurely disrupted displays.

My usual routine is to walk the Boardwalk after I have dismantled and stored my display. I look for plastic that may contaminate the ocean and kill our fish and fowl. I also pick up discarded evidence of city-sanctioned commercial vending on the Boardwalk. I now have two grocery bags full of “evidence,” should any civic minded soul care to look at it. Last Sunday, I did not do this routine check. I did not feel safe after the verbal threats that I learned were directed at me.

We are concerned that:

1. Commercial vendors are being allowed to occupy those black spaces, which have purportedly been set aside for First Amendment Free Speech Activists such as Dave, Norman, Stella and myself.

2. That the people occupying those spaces feel free to threaten us with bodily harm when we gather evidence to support our claim.

3. That Recreation and Parks has let these commercial vendors occupy those eight spaces and sell with impunity for over two years, while we have been afraid to take them due to threats to our persons.

4. We request that these spaces be identified in situ as available “for Free Speech Activity only; NO VENDING.”

We ask that this unacceptable and unconstitutional situation be remedied at once.

We further ask that steps be taken to insure our safety from assault or other harm while, before and after occupying those spaces.

In addition, we ask that those spaces be relocated further north on the Boardwalk where they will be less vulnerable to possible assaults to legitimate occupants by aggressive commercial elements masquerading as religious or other organization.

Therese Dietlin

By Laura Silagi, Stephanie Body, Ingrid Mueller, Joan Miner and Mindy Taylor-Ross.

Santa Monica residents have received a lot of press lately about the FAA test flight path of a few propeller planes over Santa Monica.  The test is over and the residents of Santa Monica are happy that all flights again have returned to departing over Venice. But what about those who live in Venice? Are we a dumping ground for Santa Monica?

We have no say in where the planes fly.  Despite years of calls and meetings with the Santa Monica Airport (SMO) officials, Venice receives no relief; we are in the same situation as before.

Here are some facts:

In 2009, there were on average 153 flights per day out of Santa Monica Airport (SMO), of which jets accounted for 19 operations per day, according to Robert Trimborn, Airport Director. During the FAA test period of flights over Santa Monica approximately 10 planes per day were rerouted over the Sunset and Ocean Park areas of Santa Monica, according to a 3 month interim evaluation by the FAA.

This caused the residents in Santa Monica to organize, petition and call the airport with the official tally for May being at least 3,500 complaints.  The City of Santa Monica was very supportive of its own residents, and even Congressman Henry Waxman wrote a letter to the FAA protesting this egregious intrusion into the quality of life to his Santa Monica constituents.

In Venice, there is an average of over 150 flights per day flying over our homes.  All the jets that depart out of SMO fly over Penmar Golf Course and down Rose and the sound and fuel pollution is spread out over the adjacent densely populated neighborhoods.

The noisy prop planes flying east are recommended to turn south at Lincoln and head east near Venice Boulevard.  SMO calls this their “ Fly Neighborly” program. It is certainly friendly to Santa Monica.  Now the residents of Santa Monica want to make the flight path over Venice mandatory. SMO benefits the City of Santa Monica with no benefit to those in Los Angeles.

Airport departure hours are weekdays from 7 a.m. to 11 p.m. and weekends starting at 8 a.m. Basically, Venice is assaulted from early morning to late at night. And there is no curfew on landings.

In addition, the six flight schools that are housed at SMO use the airways over Venice for practicing. They circle over the homes, schools and businesses all day and evening. They practice what is called “touch and goes.” Student pilots take off from SMO and circle around to the south of the airport and then head east, returning to the airport to land and then take off again. They practice the same procedure over and over again. And on weekends they practice “taxi back” procedures which simply means they land and then go to the end of the runway before starting the procedure again.

In a recent report by a team of Pediatric Residents at UCLA entitled  “Santa Monica Airport Health Impact Assessment,” the doctors analyzed other studies regarding negative impacts of other airports and assessed the results with Santa Monica Airport. One example cited from England showed that sound pollution above 55 decibels can affect the learning abilities and hearing of children. This is well below the noise level of jet plane take-offs.

Researchers from this study suggest aiming for noise exposure maximum values of 55 decibels during the daytime in order to protect the more sensitive segments of the population, such as children and the elderly. The report also details other potential negative health effects of Santa Monica Airport on the surrounding community especially to children, older adults and people with cardiac disease, pulmonary disease, or diabetes.

In the Venice and Mar Vista area alone, there are over 11 schools, from elementary through high school, as well as adult schools that lie in the flight path of both props and jets. There are also many daycare centers and young children at home, at the beach and in local parks exposed to sound pollution.

A recent UCLA research team led by Dr. Suzanne Paulson, published a study in which the area downwind, east of the airport was monitored for air pollution. High levels of Black Carbon particulates and very high concentrations of Ultra-fine particles were found.

Ultra-fine particles can enter a cell wall and travel virtually anywhere in the body. There is anecdotal evidence of high concentration of cancers in that area. Pollution levels associated with jet idle and jet blast measured in the Los Angeles neighborhood east of the airport can be as high as most anywhere in Los Angeles.  Although this study did not include Venice, we can assume that there are health risks here from air pollution caused by departing jets in particular.

And there are safety and quality of life issues. Student pilots flying over densely populated areas scare many people. Old planes and vintage planes are not restricted from SMO. There is no buffer zone required for jets. For more than twenty years, the FAA waived the runway length requirements for jets at SMO. Pilot error or mechanical malfunction can lead to tragedy.

Meanwhile, Congressman Henry Waxman and the City of Santa Monica continue to ignore the noise and pollution complaints that come from neighboring residents of Venice, Mar Vista and West Los Angeles.

What can be done?

There are now groups organized to fight this environmental injustice, and the new Venice Neighborhood Council’s Santa Monica Airport Committee is open to all those who are interested.  This committee has a survey on the VNC website for those in Venice who are adversely affected by the airport. Go to http://www.grvnc.org/node/1419.   Comments from those who participated so far include: inability to carry on a conversation in the home; work at home without constant noise; house shaking with vibrations as planes going overhead; blackened leaves on plants and fruit trees; children living in fear of planes crashing into their bedrooms; and the constant irritation of noise pollution.

The VNC group is trying to assess the number of people and areas in Venice where residents are affected by the SMO. That information will be publicized and used to pressure politicians to pay attention and change the situation for Venice and its neighbors. Venetians need to organize to fight for clear skies, especially targeting Federal representatives and the FAA.  The VNC Santa Monica Airport Committee meetings are held every third Wednesday, 9 a.m. at the Rose Café. Check the VNC website for upcoming dates, agenda items and minutes.

City councilman, Bill Rosendahl, has spoken out repeatedly about the problems SMO causes for Los Angeles residents. He has said he is willing to lie on the runway to make his point. Perhaps we should take him up on this offer and join him.  And please join in the struggle to stop Santa Monica Airport abuse.  It is also time to again complain to SMO regarding noise since they send these complaints to the FAA.  Santa Monica Airport 24 hour noise reporting: 458-8692.

Websites for further information:

VNC Santa Monica Airport Ad-Hoc Committee http://www.grvnc.org/node/1420

Concerned Citizens Residents Against Airport Pollution http://jetairpollution.com/ (a great resource for past and current information and actions.)

Santa Monica Airport Health Impact Assessment http://www.ph.ucla.edu/hs/hiaclic/pdfs/SM_Airport_Health_Impact_Assessment.pdf

Aircraft Emission Impacts in a Neighborhood Adjacent to a General Aviation Airport in Southern California http://pubs.acs.org/stoken/presspac/presspac/full/10.1021/es900975f?cookieSet=1

Santa Monica Airport Noise Complaint Form

http://www.smgov.net/departments/airport/form.aspx?ekfrm=8886

This review of how Venice voted carries on a Beachhead tradition established by Arnold Springer many years ago. These are semi-final results of the June 8 election. The final results can be found on www.lavote.net after July 8.

In the June primary, Venetians once again proved two things about their politics. First, they are more progressive than the rest of Los Angeles, and second that they are too lazy to actually get out and vote. Less than 17 percent went to the polls. Not to worry, soon the corporate oligarchy will relieve all of us of the burden to vote because it is too expensive.

One might think that this year there would be ample reason to spend a few minutes at a local polling place. Marcy Winograd, whose views are simpatico with most Venetians was taking her second crack at defeating Jane Harman, the darling of the spooks and generals. In the Assembly race no less than three Venetians – probably a record – were in the running in the hotly contested Democratic primary.

One other fact that emerged in this election is the divergence in the amount of “leftness” between Venice north of Washington Blvd. and Venice south of Washington Blvd. In the Peninsula, they even favored Harman over Winograd. What’s wrong with those people? Aren’t they reading the Beachhead?

Most of those Venetians who did vote went with the candidate who spent the most money, Betsy Butler, and not with any of their neighbors. Meanwhile, Winograd did well in Venice, but not well enough to offset aerospace country in the South Bay which voted hugely for Harman. Winograd did marginally increase her percentage district wide, rising from 37.5 percent in 2006 to 41 percent this time. Let’s see at that rate, she might defeat Harman in only four more elections. Harman again outspent Winograd by a 2-1 margin ($520,847 to $267,825)

In the Assembly race, surprise, surprise. Those who spent the most, got the most votes. Butler spent more than $400,000 to win 26 percent of the vote district wide. Also district wide, Venetian James Lau came in second with 18 percent, and it only cost him $360,000. But in Venice 90291, another Venetian, Nick Karno came in second with 23 percent. He finished third district wide, while Lau finished third in Venice. Another Venetian, Peter Thottham finished forth in Venice and sixth district wide.

Once again, Venetians voted for someone, Butler, who they had probably never heard of before the election. The current occupant of the 53rd Assembly seat, our “in Lieu of a representative,” failed to achieve stardom as the Democratic candidate for Attorney General as he had hoped, coming in forth out of seven candidates.

My conclusion is that Marcy Winograd could have easily won the Democratic primary for State Assembly, where she could have been a helpful resource for Venice and other communities. In four years or so, she could have used her strong record in Sacramento to run, and win, a seat in Congress.

In November, Butler will face Lisa Green, appropriately the Green candidate, Libertarian Ethan Musulin and Republican Nathan Mintz. Trying to unseat Harman will be Republican Mattie Fein and Libertarian Herb Peters. Neither the Greens nor Peace and Freedom put up a candidate against her.

-Jim Smith

By Jim Smith

Venice
A dream so sublime
A fate so unfair

What more can be said about Venice after 105 years? Venice has nearly everything: a beautiful beach, a great climate, walk streets galore, a multi-racial and multi-cultural population, a thriving arts and poetry scene, a habit of creating trends that sweep the country and the world.

Yes, Venice has everything except independence. Does it really matter that we can’t make decisions for ourselves, and that our highest form of democracy to is be able to advise others when they make decisions for us. Well, yes, it does matter. In a supposedly democratic country, we are ruled by politicians and bureaucrats in a building many miles to the east of us.

Recently, Venetians have conducted long struggles that have resulted in victories. Just last month, we convinced the Coastal Commission to deny a pay parking scheme devised for us in that high-rise city hall in downtown Los Angeles. Years of effort by many Venetians preserved the biggest chunk of our reasonable rental property – Lincoln Place. Last year at this time we defeated pay parking (it’s starting to be a regular event). Before that, we stopped the giant shopping center where Ralphs, Rite-Aid and Ross now reside. We’ve prevented numerous attempts to run a freeway through the center of Venice, we saved the canals, more or less. At least they didn’t become a yacht harbor. Those high-rises along Ocean Front Walk, like Santa Monica Shores, never got built.

These, and many more, are all great victories for Venice. Problem is, we were on the defensive every time. Strategists including Sun Tzu, Clausewitz and Napoleon, will tell you that you can’t really win a lasting victory unless you go on the offensive. We’ve won many battles, but the war cannot be won if we are always responding to someone else’s initiative.

This is why everyone who wants a Venice that is unique, and democratic, should now turn their attention to working for and restoring our status as a city.

So they faked an election, back in ’25
And there our independence died
Rise Venice Rise

When Venice lost its cityhood in 1925, it was a real tragedy. Most of the canals were filled in, many businesses went bust, oil revenue that could have made Venice rich disappeared downtown never to be seen again, and ultimately Abbot Kinney’s fantastic pier at the Windward Breakwater was torn down. The only lasting improvement L.A. made in Venice for many years was a police station and jail.

The election in ’25 was itself dubious. It was the third annexation vote in as many years. Threats were made to cut off Venice’s water supply, shady characters moved into Venice to agitate for annexation and to vote. There should be no doubt that a vote to restore cityhood would be equally difficult.

But restoring cityhood will be easier than reforming Los Angeles. It is a city of four million people. It is bigger than half the states in the United States. It has a bloated bureaucracy and a police force larger than the armies of more than 50 countries. It has so many vested interests that it cannot balance its own budget. Most of its city council is bought and paid for by developers and assorted billionaires. With or without Venice’s 40,000 residents, L.A. is too large and unwieldy to function effectively.

Would Venice do any better? Yes, because it does not need such an overwhelming bureaucracy.

Of the 88 cities in Los Angeles County, Venice is larger than nearly half of them. These small cities are doing just fine financially. Some are very rich, others have less revenue than Venice will have. Just how much revenue would Venice have? I asked L.A. City Controller Wendy Gruel that question a couple of months ago when she appeared at a Neighborhood Council meeting. She said she didn’t know how much revenue comes from Venice, or how much is spent here.

We can safely assume that Venice revenue to the city of L.A. is in the millions of dollars. At least it is far more than the $50,000 a year that L.A. gives back to the Neighborhood Council. With it, we would be able to beautify Venice, adequately fund social service agencies that do good things for Venice, and make our streets more pedestrian and bicycle friendly. Shuttles could take us to shop and transport visitors, urban gardens could provide much of our food.

Will having our own city stop the bickering among Venetians? Not entirely. But if it comes from frustration at not having any power to fix our problems, then there will be less of it and Venetians will work together more than in the past. We will still differ on many issues, but we will be able to resolve them among ourselves, instead of relying on others to decide what’s best for us.

Isn’t it nearly impossible to get out of L.A.? It is not easy. There are two ways to do it. We can go to the state agency, Local Agency Formation Commissions (LAFCO), <http://www.calafco.org/docs/CKH/2009_CKH_Guide.pdf> and circulate a petition according to their rules. One of their rules is that all of L.A. would have to vote in favor of Venice cityhood!

Or, we can change the rules. It’s logical that a former city that voted for annexation should be able to opt out. That is, there should be a “buyer’s remorse” clause that allows a former city to vote again on restoring its cityhood, without L.A. also voting. L.A. residents didn’t vote to annex Venice. Why should they vote on the reverse?

We can petition our state legislative representatives to author a buyers’ remorse bill. They would be under intense pressure from Los Angeles lobbyists not to introduce such a bill, or vote for it, so we had better have lots of signatures of Venetians in favor of the bill to modify LAFCO.

There is no reason to wait for someone to do this. To paraphrase Rabbi Hillel, “If not us, who? If not now, when?

All this and more will be discussed at our old city hall, now Beyond Baroque, 681 Venice Blvd. on Sunday, July 25 from 3 – 5pm. Be there if you care about the future of Venice.

One morning we will come out of our homes
with picks and shovels and dig out our canals
We’ll come with hammers and saws
and build homes for all of our Venetian family.

• Venice was incorporated as a city, not in 1905, but on Feb. 17, 1904.
• The original name for the city was not Venice, but Ocean Park. Today, Ocean Park is the name of the community to the north of Venice.
• The date we celebrate as the founding of Venice, July 4, 1905, was the grand opening of “Venice of America.”.
• It was not until May 29, 1911 that the park of Ocean Park south of Navy Street detached themselves and named their new city Venice.
• The city limits of Venice extended from Navy St. in the north to Imperial Highway. The southern park, from Pershing Drive west is today called Playa del Rey. Its street names and numbering follow the pattern in Venice.
• The most eastern point of Venice was Walgrove to Beethoven, south of Venice Blvd. It was here that the city of Venice built its high school.
• When Venice was a city, most of the surrounding area was farm land.
• Before Abbot Kinney Blvd. was named, it was called Washington Blvd. Before that it was called Lake Avenue. It was also called El Camino Real.
• North Venice Blvd. was named Pico Blvd. and South Venice Blvd. was named Virginia Ave.
• Palms Blvd. was an extension of Rialto Ave. and was named Rialto. Evidence can still be seen on the alley south of Palms, which is called Rialto Ct.
• The Venice civic center, city hall, fire and police departments were on Lorelei Ave.(now called 17th Ave.), between Pacific Ave. (then called Trolley Way) and Speedway.
• Why are so many streets and alleys in central Venice named for cities in Spain? Originally, they were named for cities in Italy. Did some hispanophile in Los Angeles change all the names after Venice was annexed at 9 am on Nov. 25, 1925? Here are just some of the names that were changed from Italian cities to Spanish cities: Verona to Toledo, Mantua to Granada, Ravenna to Valencia, Modena to Cordova, Pavia to Seville, and Ferrara to Navarre. Oddly Andalusia has always been Andalusia.

The above information was obtained from the city of Venice archives which are now being held captive in downtown Los Angeles. Free Venice!

–Jim Smith

A campaign promoted by the Beachhead since 2002 is gaining new supporters.

At a meeting of the Venice Neighborhood Council (VNC) Board, June 15, a slide show was presented, two former internees spoke, Arnold Maeda and Yosh Tomita. Everyone who spoke in public comment was in favor, including Scott Pine, a Venice High School student, who said: “This monument will clearly show the people of Venice, and every citizen who passes by this monument, how easy it is to lose our precious democratic rights.  Besides the monument’s symbolic meaning, it marks the historical setting where Japanese Americans gathered, to be relocated.”

He added: “I found out about this tremendous idea in an article in the Free Venice Beachhead.”

The VNC voted unanimously to support the monument and to write a letter to Councilmember Bill Rosendahl calling on him to introduce a motion in the L.A. City Council to authorize the memorial.

Japanese on the West Coast, both U.S. citizens and non-citizens, were put in concentration camps during World War II. Those in Venice were ordered to report to the northwest corner of Venice and Lincoln Boulevards where they were put on buses to Manzanar.

In recent months, new endorsements have come from the Venice Arts Council, the Venice Hongwanji Buddhist Temple, the Venice Japanese American Community Center, the Culver-Venice Chapter of the Japanese American Citizens League, the Nikkei Student Union at UCLA, the New Media Academy students at Venice High, the Venice Town Council and the Social and Public Art Resource Center (SPARC).

The effort was initiated by the Venice Peace and Freedom Chapter which circulated petitions in 2001. Approximately 200 Venetians signed in support of the idea.

I was born in Santa Monica, in 1926 and have lived in Mar Vista since 1958. I am here this evening to voice my support for the MARKER project sponsored by various individuals and organizations of the Venice community. I feel that this is a worthy project, especially today, to highlight and educate the people about the historical event that took place at this intersection 68 years ago. We were ordered by Civilian Exclusion Orders to report for further instructions as to when and where to assemble for transportation to our unknown destination. Our pick up spot was on the northwest corner of Venice and Lincoln Boulevards.

The more we publicize information like this to the general public, the better chance we have of preventing a similar incident to occur again. On that unforgettable day in April of 1942, our destination turned out to be a mile-square patch of desert land that was fenced in by barbed wire and surrounded by eight guard towers — an American-style detention camp that eventually held over 10,000 men, women, and children. Our camp was named Manzanar War Relocation Center, and it was located between Lone Pine and Independence on the west side of Highway 395. I am not here to talk about Manzanar where I spent three and a half years of my teenage life.

I am here to encourage the Venice Neighborhood Council to pass a motion to write a letter to Councilman Bill Rosendahl in support of a memorial marker on the northwest corner of Venice and Lincoln.  I have such a personal connection to this corner, and I always point out this location to any of my passengers as we drive by.  I always have had a very visceral, emotional response to even thinking about my incarceration. But with discussion of this marker, my negative feelings have somehow dissipated, and have been replaced with feelings of hope.   b

By CJ Gronner

Maybe it’s because of all the horror of the Gulf Oil Spill down South, but it seems to me that people here in California are getting a lot more riled up lately about saving our own waters from the same fate. Because we MUST.

In that vein, I recently went out with the Santa Monica Baykeeper folks to observe National Oceans Day, and also to take a look at what shape our beloved Bay is in. Started in 1993, the Baykeeper’s mission is to protect and restore our waters through enforcement, field work, and community action. As we’ve seen down in the Gulf, if people are allowed to do whatever they want to our environment, they will – and with disastrous results.

So it was that I woke up early on a Sunday morning and pedaled over to the Marina to meet up with Brian Meux, Baykeeper’s Marine Programs Manager, and Kristy Pyke, their lovely P.R. Lady. The idea was to take the boat up to Point Dume and meet up with reps from Heal The Bay, The Surfrider Foundation, and Below The Surface, who were paddling out on stand up paddleboards to highlight our most diverse and productive ocean area, and check out the health of the kelp forests that keep our entire oceanic eco-system thriving (hopefully) while we were at it.

It was a misty morning, with waves just big enough to make us happy that we’d behaved ourselves (somewhat) the night before. It was, in all honesty, a joy just to look down and see blue water, after all the black globby images we’ve seen coming out of the Gulf Of Mexico. It was not a joy, however, to see a giant cluster of mylar balloons floating by, way out at sea. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again … LEAVE YOUR DANG BALLOONS OFF THE BEACH!

Your kids will still have a happy birthday, I promise. They kill marine life, period. That is not a good lesson to teach the birthday party kids, now, is it? We scooped up that bunch of balloons, and just wished we’d had a chance to wring the necks of those who thought it best to leave them in the sea. Grrr.

Cruising along, we spotted the Paddlers up ahead, and we all met up to discuss what they were doing, and what we can ALL do to make sure that we continue to have beautiful beaches and waters to enjoy for generations to come. It’s all about involvement, after all. Each of the organizations mentioned above has events or clean-ups you can volunteer for pretty much every week. And you should.

It’s good for the soul to participate in things that are bigger than you,and that make the world better in one instant. I pick up after some of you fools every morning as I walk along the beach, and you have the instant gratification of it being more lovely than you met it each morning, just by bending down and grabbing that broken bottle (REALLY?!) or picnic remnant or stupid balloon scrap.

We were all encouraged (and one surfer a little spooked) when a gigantic purple striped jellyfish wafted by right under the guy’s board who was next to the boat. If that big jelly was happy where he or she was, things may be looking up for our Bay. The stories these guys can tell you, from their paddle-outs, their aerial surveys, and kelp forest dives are full of both dismay, and hope.

Dismay that people actually still have the mental capacity to think it fine to dump old toilets and tires IN the sea, 3 miles out from the coast! What in the world is WRONG with these brains that could do that? Dismay at the “Plastic to Plankton ratio” that some say is like 6 bits of plastic to each one of plankton. I just almost puked as I typed that, but it’s true.

But there is hope for us yet. I felt it as we raced across the waves and watched about 30 dolphins race alongside us and in our wake, jumping out into the sunshine and gracing us with their sleek beauty and natural smiles. Hope that we were all out there early in the morning, because there are these organizations and people who care so much, and actually get out to DO SOMETHING about it.

Hope was evident again this past weekend as Baykeeper, Surfrider, Heal The Bay, and a whole bunch of concerned citizens met up for “Hands Across The Sand” down by the Venice and Santa Monica Piers, and at over 650 other coastal beaches around the world at noon our time.

We all gathered by the Venice Pier, and talk was less what you did last night, and mainly all how much we love our beaches, and how badly we all want to preserve and IMPROVE them, and especially save them from any oil related fate. On that note, Venice friends and neighbors laid down on the sand to spell out “Go Green” and “End Oil” out of humans. Then all of us who were not being used in a letter, held hands all across the beach to demonstrate to the world that we mean business about our beaches. We have to.

As the motto of Below the Surface states, “Be The Solution”. That can mean many things, but it HAS to mean doing SOMETHING. Bring your own bags to the market. BAN Plastic bags. Use a stainless steel water bottle every time, and phase out those plastic ones. Participate in beach clean-ups. Throw your beach trash away in the first place – duh. Get rid of your cigarette butts in an ashtray, not out your car window, jerks. (I will make a citizen’s arrest on that one. Every time.)Reduce your filthy oil habit, as best you can. Reuse and Recycle. Ride your bike. Take a WALK, L.A.! Hold hands across the sand with your friends to bring attention to it all. Walk the talk.

As Summer takes over Venice, get to know your H2O. Our health depends upon its health. Imagine our Summer months down at the beach, looking out at black tar islands and choking sea creatures, instead of shimmering blue waters full of life. That would wreck your buzz for sure … and we really don’t want that.

Final agreement signed: 83 evicted families will return, all buildings will be preserved, a total of 795 apartments will be occupied.

By Jim Smith

How do you spell victory?   L-i-n-c-o-l-n   P-l a-c-e is as good a way as any. There was  jubilation among tenants when the last of three agreements was approved by the L.A. City Council on May 26.

It had been a long struggle for those who had lived at Lincoln Place for 20 years or more. Chief among them is Sheila Bernard, the president of the Lincoln Place Tenant Association. She and other veterans were joined over the years by hundreds of activists and thousands of well wishers from Venice who all contributed in small and large ways to the final settlement.

It was also a victory for the corporate owner, AIMCO, who instead of carrying a large liability on its books will ultimately receive up to $1.5 million per month in rents. In addition, AIMCO will be allowed to build an additional 99 units on land where apartments had been bulldozed by the previous owner. However the new buildings cannot be taller than 30 feet.

Meanwhile, all those who were evicted five years ago will be paying 2005 rents, and every existing apartment will fall under current rent control laws.

In a celebration May 29, tenants and community supporters were lavish in their praise for Amanda Seward, who won historical status for Lincoln Place, for Laura Burns and Jan Book, who did much of the legal research, and for all the tenants, whose tenacity ultimately won the day.

In addition, Venice residents – many of whom had once lived at Lincoln Place – came to the aid of the tenants time after time. In all, 10,000 families have lived in the complex since it was built in the late 1940s.

A turning point in the long struggle that was cited by many was Dec. 6, 2005, the day of the most evictions in Los Angeles history. While it was a dark day for the 52 families who were summarily removed from their homes by more than 100 police, it also served to turn public opinion against AIMCO.

After that, there were mass meetings and rallies, the intervention on the side of the tenants of City Councilmember Bill Rosendahl, fundraising to cover legal expenses, and a variety of lawsuits that kept tenants in court day after day.

There were three settlement agreements: AIMCO and Amanda Seward, to preserve the historical status; AIMCO and the Lincoln Place Tenants Association, to preserve the rights of the evicted renters and to allow their return; and AIMCO and the city of Los Angeles, which protects the buildings and calls for rehabilitation of the historic apartments.

It is unclear how long it will take for the 83 evicted families to return to newly renovated homes. Currently, there are only 11 disabled and senior residents and families living at Lincoln Place. Under the agreement, all 83 families will be relocated in the buildings close to the Ross store. This will provide for easy access to Ralphs and Rite Aid.

After that, up to 500 union construction workers will begin replacing the electrical and plumbing in all units.

In the end, there will be nearly-new rent controlled apartments for up to 3,000 people. In addition, there will be 99 more units which will not be under rent control since current state law specifies that buildings must have been constructed in 1978 or earlier to qualify under a city’s ordinance.

The fight to save Lincoln Place has been won. At one time, the landlord’s plan was to bulldoze all the beautiful garden apartments after tossing out their occupants who were never to return. In their place, would have been 1,000 high rise apartments or condominiums which would have forever changed the character of Venice.

That is one future we don’t have to worry about thanks to the heroic tenants of Lincoln Place.

The entire settlement agreement between the City and AIMCO can be read at www.freevenice.org/City-AIMCO-Agreement.

pdf. A summary of the agreement between the tenants union and AIMCO is at: www.lincolnplace.net/pr090813.html.

Is it really possible that the powerful California Coastal Commission will cave in to a lawsuit started by an irate Venice resident?

It’s more than possible, it’s probable, unless Venice residents turn out in force at the June 10 meeting at the Marina del Rey hotel to remind the Commissioners of their mission to protect the coastal zone for all, and to place access to the beach above all political considerations.

Under the proposed settlement, whose terms will also be considered by the L.A. City Council at its June 2 meeting, “movable home” residents will be evicted from Venice. Last month’s Beachhead broke the story, and the City Council finally came clean on its agreement with Mark Ryavec’s Venice Stakeholders Ass’n. on May 25.

The agreement would phase in permit parking, beginning with six months of enforcement of a new no oversized vehicle law from 2-6am. After that, the city could announce that the oversized vehicle law is not working and a full permit parking law is needed.

The Coastal Commission blocked permit parking (OPDs) in Venice last June, calling it a violation of beach access. The Commission’s staff had recommended that the Commission go along with the city by allowing permit parking. After a huge turnout of Venetians opposed to the OPDs, the Commission defied its staff and voted against the permits. The Commission then directed the staff to write a revised report in opposition to permit parking.

That report concludes, “…Commission approval of the proposed project would be a bad precedent that would prejudice the ability of the City to prepare an LCP that is in conformity with Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act, and is therefore not consistent with Section 30604(a) of the Coastal Act.

An LCP is a Local Coastal Program. Each part of the coast is supposed to have one. Yet, Los Angeles has been unable to create one that is acceptable to the Coastal Commission. Past efforts have been too friendly to development, and permit parking would be yet another sticking point (See April 2008 Beachhead: http://bit.ly/ccboDb).

There are at least two aspects to this battle which has sucked in Venice organizations, the city of L.A., the Coastal Commission, and the right-wing Pacific Legal Foundation, so far.

At stake, are the legal and moral rights of poor people who are unable to defend themselves.

Can they be treated like animals who have to be controlled with a “carrot and a stick”? The result of this policy, as Beachhead readers know, has been early morning sweeps by crews of police, who would probably rather be home in bed, or out chasing criminals.

It has also been responsible for utilizing an obscure law that prevents vehicles taller than six feet from parking within 100 feet of an intersection.

Councilmember Bill Rosendahl has been a force in keeping permit parking alive in Venice. He has promised to find RV owners a safe place to sleep, yet he is rushing to get agreement on their eviction from city streets prior to finding an alternative location for them.

Coastal access is at issue, as well. It was this issue more than any other that caused the Coastal Commission to vote against permit parking because it reserves precious street parking for residents and denies it to visitors to the beach.

The revised staff report points out that it is not just 2-6am parking that is the problem, but that it gives residents with permits a head start on beach goers who may arrive later in the day.

Proponents have argued that Venetians have the “right” to impose permit parking on themselves. Next they will be promoting high rents as a “right” we should enjoy.

Peggy Lee Kennedy, a third-generation Venetian, believes that the most important right is that those who are homeless or live in “movable homes” should have basic civil rights. An assumption of the lawsuit settlement documents, says Kennedy, “is that someone living in a vehicle is not part of the general public or even considered a resident of Venice. Nothing is further from the truth,” she adds.

“People using a vehicle for shelter or home do reside in the Venice Coastal Zone. Most are regularly using the homeless services provided in Venice, such as the Venice Family Clinic,” observes Kennedy.

June 10 at the Coastal Commission will be a critical meeting for those who believe that Venice should be a haven for a diversity of people.  It will also be a time to speak up for those who do not want to pay to park in front of their homes.

June 10 will be a clash of two views of future Venice: the free-spirited Venice of its residents, or the income generating Venice of the gentrifiers, backed by the city of Los Angeles.  Call (310)-398-7192 to find out how you can help stop permit parking and RV evictions in Venice.

Which do you choose?

• Homes With Wheels – Therese Dietlin
• City Doesn’t Care about Beach – Annette Robinson
• Food Trucks – David of Slice Truck

——

Homes With Wheels

Dear Beachhead,

The letter from Bill Rosendahl addressing the OPD issue that you published in your last issue calls for a few comments.

First, the people living in their vehicles are not “homeless;” rather, their homes have wheels.  The concern expressed in the letter doesn’t at all address the truly homeless – those living on the streets and sleeping in nooks and crannies where they are hopeful they won’t be harassed before morning.  The people exposed to the elements.  So, one wonders what the real issue being addressed is.

Second, the condescension with which these people are addressed in Rosendahl’s letter leaves much to be desired.  Many of them are in those vehicles because they have no other option, given the current economic and political situation.  They are not the totally dysfunctional people they come across as in the description proffered.  They could actually be considered quite enterprising in their attempts to deal with their less than ideal situation.  Instead, the plan to address their circumstances is couched in terms that make them seem unable to breathe on their own unless they have their hands held.  Perhaps it would be more useful to treat them as individuals instead of hapless victims who would not possibly help themselves or  think for themselves.

While there are people in the streets who do deserve assistance and aid, and who probably are not sufficiently functional, the OPD issue does not address them or their circumstances.

This brings me to a thought that might be worth some reflection. It might be more beneficial to everyone (and not only in Venice) if Mr. Rosendahl used his influence in city hall to address the wholesale corruption and venality that one can justly consider to be at the heart of the current unsatisfactory state of affairs which has led to the “homeless” problem – and many others as well. It might be very gratifying for everyone to see just how capable these people (and the unseen others on the receiving end of the corruption) are at constructively addressing their situation once they become convinced they are being dealt with justly and honestly.

Thank you. Therese Dietlin

——-

City Doesn’t Care about Beach

Dear Beachhead,

Our monthly meeting was cancelled tonight, but since six people arrived we decided to have an informal meeting, anyway. A lively discussion of beach issues ensued and after nearly an hour some interesting observations were reached:

1. The lack of the city’s interest in Venice Beach as a priority, so that necessary changes or improvements are ignored or put off indefinitely.

2. Although the beach offers the widest variety of activities imaginable — Swimming, fishing, biking, surfing, skateboarding, roller-skating, jogging, hiking, shopping, dining, volleyball, basketball, handball, weight-lifting, exercising on equipment, tournaments, exhibits, contests, a children’s playground — one would never know it due to the lack of clean and repaired restrooms, sidewalks, and garbage cans –

this large array becomes a jumble since upkeep is neglected.

3. The lottery has created as many problems as it has solved. Instituted to fairly distribute limited vending space, it has led to people who have no interest in vending except selling their lottery tickets. Also, family members participate in the lottery, leaving single vendors with fewer chances.

4. Commercial vending, with its cheap imports, has largely replaced the artists and craftspeople that have to compete with two-dollar goods.

5. The last ordinance, that is both confusing and conflicting, needs to be changed for clarification, implementation and fairness to shops, vendors and the public.

The final conclusion was that nothing will change unless City Hall sees Venice Beach as a priority worthy of fair rulings and constant maintenance.

Sincerely, Annette Robinson

Recreation and Parks Board Member

——-

Food Trucks

Dear Beachhead,

I own SliceTruck and I live in Venice. We were at First Friday once and that was in January. We were parked in front of The Other Room about three blocks from Abbot’s Pizza. We are currently the only pizza truck in L.A. County so it must have been us you were referring to. I’m sorry it disturbed you so much.

I’m wondering, do old-timey Mexican taco trucks not take business from Casalinda or whatever Mexican restaurant they might be parked near? Why would that be OK with you?

-David of Slice Truck

By Joey Marie Soto

On May 22 a group of us got together to organize the first West Side Produce Exchange. The location of the site was right here in Venice, at the home of Carly Eiseman.

The idea was borrowed from the Hillside Produce Cooperative which holds a free neighborhood monthly exchange of all the fruits, vegetables, herbs and flowers that its members grow in their yards and don’t want or won’t use themselves. “Then no food is wasted and we all get a variety of fresh local produce to eat for free,” says Hynden Walch, who organized their co-op.

“My garden time had a greater purpose.  I was harvesting to participate in this great event. So I picked collard greens, Swiss chard, kale, some parsley and some oranges. Loaded it up on my bike and traveled the super close distance of two blocks away and dropped off my contribution.  Then, as if angels were in charge, a box was delivered to me!  Got home from work with a box of veggies waiting at my doorstep.”

Meanwhile, back in Venice, Catherine Vargas participated by sharing her surplus of beets.  She is excited to help in person this weekend at the Hillside Exchange so she can learn from the pros.  ”Happy with the first event in the Westside Exchange.  I am excited to watch this grow.  We had 9 participants and next month we hope to have more.”

Naomi Curland the woman in charge of organizing the day felt really good about how it all worked out.  ”We had TONS of delicious fresh organic produce. By 1:30, each bag was filled to the brim with Meyer lemons, oranges, beets, chard, collards, kale, salad greens, arugula, celery, rosemary, tarragon, basil, parsley, and garlic chives. What a bounty!  A huge thank you to our bagging volunteers Steve and Sylvia, and to our wonderful host Carly.”

So the second or third Saturday of every month we will be hosting this exchange at different homes in the West Side.  Do you have veggies or a fruit tree?  Why not get involved?  It is true that money is tight and community is more important than ever.  This is one option to off set the need to travel to the market, spend money and use fossil fuels to get your veggies on.

Contact Naomi at  ncurland@gmail.com if you are interested in sharing your surplus.

A civil suit for negligence was filed May 13 in the Santa Monica Division of Superior Court against the city of Los Angeles and the Los Angeles Police Department for the death of Devin Petelski.

Petelski was killed shortly before midnight on Oct. 15, 2009, when a police car traveling at a high rate of speed and allegedly with no lights hit her vehicle. A “black box” in the police car had clocked it at 78 miles per hour. Petelski was beginning to make a right turn from Glyndon Avenue onto Venice Blvd. The speed limit on Venice Blvd. is 40 mph.

According to police, the car had not sent a radio message that it was responding to a crime in progress. The reason for speeding without lights is unknown. However, it seems to be a common practice for officers to engage in “silent running” even though it was prohibited several years ago and the LAPD denies any knowledge of the term.

The lawsuit, by her parents, Ron Petelski and Shaunnah Godfrey, comes after an internal investigation by the LAPD found no wrongdoing on the part of the officers.  Named as defendants are LAPD Officers James Eldridge, the driver, and Ramon Vasquez, a passenger in the squad car.

Petelski, age 25, died a day and a half later from injuries she sustained in the accident.  The case is scheduled to be heard beginning on August 31. Judge Lisa Hart Cole will preside.

Petelski’s parents are represented by Bruce A. Broillet, Timothy J. Wheeler and Geoffrey S. Wells of the Santa Monica law firm of Greene, Broillet & Wheeler.

“In barreling down Venice Boulevard at night without using required lights or sirens,” stated Bruce A. Broillet, “the LAPD’s conduct was not only negligent, but careless and reckless as well.  The LAPD’s failure to follow proper procedures exponentially increased the odds of putting a member of the general public in harm’s way.  So very sadly for Devin’s parents, it was their daughter who became the victim of the LAPD’s utter disregard for public safety.  In seeking justice on behalf of Devin Petelski, we have filed this lawsuit to hold the LAPD accountable for its actions.”

“Devin Petelski died a senseless death,” said Lawyer Wells, “all because the LAPD was driving too fast in the middle of the night without using required lights or sirens.  Yet, if the LAPD had its way, they’d place all the blame on an innocent bystander in order to exonerate themselves from any wrongdoing.”

Petelski had just left her job as a counselor at the Clearview Treatment Programs down the street on Glyndon. Police initially claimed she was drunk, however, no alcohol was found in her blood. The driver of the other car was not tested.

After her death, Petelski’s heart, kidneys and liver were donated to needy recipients.

There are two Beachhead articles about the incident, “Murder on Venice Blvd.” and an eyewitness account. They may be found at http://freevenicebeachhead.wordpress.com/2009/11.

By C.J. Gronner

June Gloom has arrived here at the beach. It makes it extra hard to get up early in the morning to have my walk along the shore, but we do it anyway. It really does affect my mood, this thick mass of gray, and so it was that as we walked along this morning, my mind wandered to darker things. Things like why are there so many big clumps of tar along the beach this morning? The BP horror show in the Gulf of Mexico has been in my thoughts a lot lately, obviously, but there’s no way tar clumps could be HERE already, is there? It HAS been spewing for over a month … I don’t know. I do know that I have to scrub my feet for a half hour when I get home, and that’s with being careful where I step. I walk this stretch of beach every morning, and it’s way more tar than normal. Even if it’s completely unrelated, there shouldn’t be tar washing up, period. And as for the Gulf, people need to go to Jail. For life. No question. And don’t even get me going on the huge profits BP has made lately. What an absolute dirty joke.

My friend Jenny and I get pretty riled up in our discussions about such things, and it wasn’t until we were walking past the huge tractors digging up sand near the sewage outlet (Again, I’ll refrain from THAT digression of pollution in our waters – just for now), that we saw and remembered that this morning was the unveiling of the first three painted Lifeguard Towers for the fantastic Portraits of Hope project.

By the time the Summer is in full swing, all the lifeguard towers from Zuma Beach in the North, to Palos Verdes in the South, will be completely decked out in brightly-colored patterns. They were all painted on boards by kids and volunteers around Los Angeles, and the panels will be put up on the towers by construction teams.

As we got closer to the last tower before the Santa Monica Pier (the one where we usually take a water break and stretch on), I had to crack up a bit, because something felt different. I realized that the beach was the most immaculate I’d ever seen it in my life – fully raked and groomed, not ONE piece of garbage, and the homeless guy that has been crashed out sleeping near our tower EVERY morning for over a year, was nowhere to be seen (Paid off to move? How does that work?). Then I saw the reporters and cameras assembling on folding chairs by our tower, as well as guys in suits and the Venice H.S. Marching Band, and connected the dots that they would want to have a pristine beach for all the photo ops that were about to happen. Kinda funny, but nice to see the beach like that, real or fake.

The three towers were shrouded in gray tarps, matching the mood of the weather. The line-up of city officials began, with the speechifying that usually accompanies such events. We stood there in our tarry feet for quite a few speeches, and it went on and on.

L.A. County Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky talked about how L.A. beaches are some of the most recognizable in the world, and this lifeguard tower project is going to brighten it all up, from land, sea and sky,  all summer long, until October. After that, many of the wood panels will be sent to Haiti to provide both shelter and color to a place that sorely needs it. Wonderful! Supervisor Yaroslavsky said it was actually kind of nice that it was so gray out, as the contrasting brightness of the towers would be all the more noticeable. True, but when our beloved Sunshine is back, it’s really going to be something.

The Venice Marching Band played (and it warms my heart in this increasingly electronic age that there are still kids that sign up to be in Marching bands), and little kids ran about learning about Ocean stuff (and hopefully avoiding tar).

Then the brothers behind the Project of Hope, Ed and Bernie Massey, were up next to speak, but it was all taking so long that we really had to split and get our days started.

Please go to their website – PortraitsofHope.org – to learn more about this great organization that stresses the importance of teaching ART to kids, while making them feel that they’re a part of something BIG, which this endeavor surely is.

We kept turning around as we walked to see if they had pulled off the tarps yet, and all the way back to Venice, they STILL hadn’t. (I get it that people work hard on things and want to say their bits, but, Man. Short and sweet, People).

My morning felt a little unfinished not having seen the dramatic unveiling, so I pedaled back down there this afternoon. Sure enough, through the gray mist, the colors popped out at me, even from quite a distance. I love it. With all the gloom and doom and fear shoved at us on the evening news every single night – environmentally, politically, financially, and even in our own community with more bike thefts, OPD fights, redtape hassles and other lameness like that, it can be real easy to fall into that line of thinking. Especially when the marine layer socks us in on top of it, it can be like S.A.D. disorder around here.

So when an entire 30 mile stretch of beach fights back against that to proclaim – NO! This is going to be a Summer of Color! (that’s actually the theme of the Lifeguard Tower project, painted across the top of each of them) – it makes you embrace the color inside yourself, and fight back in your own mind against all the heavy gray that looms around you.

Color. Hope. Community. Fun. YES! And all just in time for Summer. A Colorful Summer. Embrace it.

By Greta Cobar

A Los Angeles City Council Ordinance on medical marijuana is set to take effect June 7 and to impose some of the toughest rules in the state. The city’s current 800 or so dispensaries will be reduced in number to 70, while in Venice twenty-some medical marijuana shops will have to close, as we will only be allowed to have one. The difficult-to-comprehend ordinance was approved by a vote of 9-3, with Bill Rosendahl, Jan Perry and Bernard C. Parks voting against it.

The 187 shops that were opened before the November 13, 2007 moratorium will be allowed to remain open as long as they are not located within 1000 feet of schools, parks, libraries, churches, and other so-called “sensitive use” areas. In addition, they cannot be located across the street or sharing a corner with a residentially zoned lot.

The ordinance states that when any of those 187 shops closes, it won’t be replaced until the number is reduced to 70, but it does not go any further to explain how and if any of the 187 dispensaries that opened before the 2007 moratorium will indeed be closed to reduce the number to 70.

As far as Venice is concerned, the 8 dispensaries that opened before the 2007 moratorium are Ironworks, The Farmacy, Marina Caregivers Cooperative, Venice Beach Care Center, California Alternative Caregivers, Nile Collective, Supplemental Organic Solutions and Herbalology. They will be allowed to remain open as long as they abide the 1000 foot location restrictions, but on the other hand the ordinance allows for only 1 dispensary in the city of Venice. How those 8 shops will become 1 is unclear at best.

It will be interesting to see if the city will indeed proceed to force hundreds of prosperous businesses to close in the middle of the great recession or if the lawlessness that dominated in the last few years will continue.

Despite the November 2007 moratorium over new dispensaries in Los Angeles, hundreds have opened since then under a hardship exemption included in the moratorium itself. And after the Obama administration announced this past year that it wouldn’t prosecute medical marijuana users, the number of dispensaries further boomed.

Meanwhile, all threats from the local as well as the federal government did not materialize. For example, in July 2007 the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) sent out letters notifying owners that they stand to lose their properties and face 20 years in prison for allowing their buildings to be used for “unlawfully distributing a controlled substance.” Three years later, no owner lost his property and nobody went to jail for allowing a dispensary to operate on his property.

Thus, the over 600 dispensaries throughout the city that received notices to close by June 7 are hoping that the law will not be put into effect this time, just as it wasn’t in the past. Four dispensaries asked for a temporary court order to stop Los Angeles from shutting them down come June 7, but their requests were denied.

On the other hand, the Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010, an initiative to legalize marijuana, will be on the California November ballot. If passed, it would allow adults 21 or older to possess, share and transport up to an ounce of marijuana for personal use and to grow up to 25 square feet of marijuana per residence. It would allow local governments, but not the state, to authorize the cultivation, transportation and sale of marijuana and to impose taxes in order to raise revenues.

A person would be able to buy marijuana without a card from the doctor and dispensaries would be able to operate for-profit, but this legalization initiative might not change much else, as the LA City Council will maintain control over the dispensaries much as it does now.

We know from the November 5, 2009 Venice Neighborhood Council meeting that when asked who supports legalizing marijuana, everyone in the packed room raised their hands. However, without cityhood we would not be able to keep our twenty-some dispensaries open or have much input into any other decisions regarding marijuana, either sold as medical marijuana or legalized.

However, most growers in Humboldt County fear legalizing marijuana because they fear their profits will shrink from taxes and competition. Corporate tobacco companies could move in and take over the business, causing prices to drop significantly.

As a matter of fact, Northern California marijuana growers have already experienced a significant drop in prices, as dispensaries are now paying $2000 for a pound, compared to just a few years ago, when they used to pay $4000 for that same pound. On the other hand, the dispensaries themselves continue to sell an eighth of an ounce for $50, which adds up to $6400 for a pound. This has actually forced people from up north to go back and sell on the street for a better profit. If marijuana laws, whether medical or fully legalized, go astray, marijuana business will be right back on the streets.

And while doctors are allowed to prescribe marijuana under the current state law, according to the federal government it continues to be illegal and classified as a Schedule I drug, one with “a high potential for abuse” and “no currently accepted medical use in treatment”, criminalizing the acts of prescribing, dispensing, and processing marijuana for any purpose. Thus marijuana cannot be grown for federally-sponsored research studies, which leaves the doctors prescribing it with only folk-tales to learn from, without any medical literature.

The American Medical Association, the nation’s largest physician association, has recently joined the Institute of Medicine and the American College of Physicians in calling for a review of marijuana as a Schedule I controlled substance. Re-classifying marijuana as a Schedule II drug would not only put it in a category other than heroin, but it would open the door to research into its benefits. Doctors are now prescribing it for children with autism, but the research on this as well as its other uses is minimal at best.

In 1986 the FDA and the DEA approved marijuana in pill form, called Marido. People did not like it, but why would the FDA and the DEA OK it in pill form, but not in its natural form? Well, because a pill can be trademarked and its profits controlled, while an herb that grows as a weed cannot.

However, marijuana is believed to be California’s largest cash crop. The California State Board of Equalization estimated the state could gain $1.3 billion a year in taxes and fees if marijuana were legalized. Let’s hope that legislators come up with common-sense, supply-and-demand oriented laws that we can all be happy with. Nobody wants to go back on the streets, depending on Mexican drug cartels supplying pesticide-ridden herb.

Just like in 1996 California led the nation to become the first state to approve medical marijuana, it will be the first state to have an initiative to legalize it on the November ballot. But whereas the medical marijuana dispensaries blossomed while laws were vague and not enforced, we need to have a better system in place for regulating legal marijuana.

Venice was born on July 4, 1905.

Please submit your letters, poems, articles, photos, drawings about Venice. Give us your views, recollections and opinions about historic, present day and future Venice.

Send to: Beachhead@freevenice.org or P.O. Box 2, Venice 90294

By Lisa Green

While standing outside the gated entrance to Governor Schwarzenegger’s Brentwood estate with other activists with signs stating, “Vote NO on Prop 14” and “Stop Top Two” I began making a list of what makes Proposition 14 such a bad idea:

Do you want fewer choices on the ballot in terms of candidates?

Do you want even more emphasis on campaign contributions by big corporate power influencing candidates?

Do you wish to protect incumbents by improving their odds because of name recognition, regardless of effectiveness?

Do you want to increase the chances of having ONLY 2 candidates from the same party on the November ballot?

Of course not. The average voter I speak with wants qualified candidates that have the ability and the skills to address the problems, and offer effective, achievable solutions.

Vote NO on Proposition 14 on June 8. Washington and Louisiana have not improved the partisan nature of elections or elected officials. Instead, these laws have made it far more difficult to challenge incumbents or change the direction of government.

Proposition 14 would deny independent and third party candidates and politicians in this state a chance to be heard, while further polarizing our districts and limiting voter choice – all at increased costs to taxpayers and candidates.

Vote NO Prop 14 on June 8th. Tell Sacramento that it’s time for real solutions.

Lisa Green is a Green Party candidate for State Assembly.

What About The Judges?

By Jackie Goldberg

Office #35 – Soussan Bruguera
Office #73 – Laura A. Matz
Office #131 – Maren Nelson
Office #28 – Mark Ameli
Office #107 – Valeria Salkin;
Office #117 – Alan Schneider

Here is some commentary on all of these. These are NOT easy to figure out. So, in addition to my recommendations, I am including other information which may, or may not, cause you to vote differently than listed above.  Not a problem for me.  I just want you to have as much information as I could find.

The three incumbents, Bruguera, Matz and Nelson, are being challenged for no apparent reasons and deserve to be re-elected. If it makes a difference to you, I don’t know Judge Matz’s political party affiliation, but the other two are both endorsed by the Democratic Party.

Office #28: This is a crowded race with eight candidates, six of whom are rated “qualified” by the County Bar, two are rated “not qualified,” and none are rated “well qualified.”

Office #107: I’ve endorsed Valerie Salkin, as has the Stonewall Democratic Club. Salkin was the student rep on the ABA Board, actively championing LGBT issues (as a straight woman). Salkin is rated “qualified” by the Bar, but both of the other candidates are rated “Well Qualified.”  Tony de la Reyes has served on the Los Angeles City Police Commission, Civil Service Commission, and Cultural Affairs Commission and some endorse him as well.

Office #117: Alan Schneider is the only candidate rated “well qualified” and he has been endorsed by Stonewall.

Jackie Goldberg is a former progressive state Assemblymember and an education activist. b