Growing anger over those $500 citations spewed by photo enforcement cameras. They have little to do with safety say critics who claim the creepy, peepy red light cams can actually increase accidents at intersections.
This entry was posted on Sunday, February 22nd, 2009 at 5:00 pm and is filed under L.A. Stories, Venice Beach. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
Permit parking vote targets Venice homeless
“Best fledgling democracy this side of Baghdad” quipped a resident after his first voting encounter with the 5 year-old Venice Neighborhood Council. “We’ve got long lines, confusing ballots, screaming matches. Now, someone’s taking the uncounted ballots home for the night. We’ve got everything but purple ink on our fingers.”
No sectarian violence either as stakeholders turned out in record numbers Saturday, approving initiatives that would expel the motorized homeless from their ‘hood. Voters refused to overturn an earlier neighborhood council endorsement of overnight permit parking districts.
Some Venetians said they were driven solely by parking frustrations and reluctant to impact the already hard-hit homeless. Still, the measures they approved would drive homeless vehicle-dwellers from Venice streets under threat of heavy fines — without offering parking alternatives. Voters also affirmed the rights of residents to set parking restrictions for individual blocks.
|
|
||
| 868 NO 634 YES 9 ABSTAIN |
Initiative A |
|
|
|
||
| 891 YES 608 NO 13 ABSTAIN |
Initiative B |
|
|
|
||
Lines of voters stretched for blocks on three sides of the Los Angeles Public Library’s Venice branch for much of the afternoon, some waiting 90 minutes or longer to weigh in on the issue.
Council president Mike Newhouse defended the narrow three-hour voting window that began at 12:30 p.m. saying it created a low-impact day that encouraged volunteer participation. Volunteers we spoke with, however, said they were fully prepared to stay as long as necessary. Some said they had earlier urged the council to lengthen the voting. Critics dismissed the vote as flawed, failing to accommodate absentees and working Venetians.
Many voters said they were flummoxed by the wording of the initiatives. “Nearly half looked at the ballot and wanted to know what the referendums meant,” said one volunteer. “The way the issues were written was really hard to figure. I had no choice but to tell voters that we were not permitted by law to explain anything. I’m not sure how many knew what they were voting for.”
Then came a ballot shortage followed by an emergency Xerox run to print more. At 3:30 p.m., voters were no longer allowed to join the still blocks-long line. But as voting dragged on, prospects for a same-day tally looked doubtful. The council descended into hysterics as it debated its options. President Mike Newhouse was nowhere to be found.
“They were screaming at each other!” said an eyewitness. “They were saying, ‘Take the ballots home uncounted? You can’t do that!’ It got very angry. There were threats — people wanting to throw others out, people threatening to call the police. It was bad.”
More on all this at Tibby Rothman’s Venice Paper.
Ultimately, the council acquiesced to member Ian Spiegel’s suggestion that completed ballots spend the night in signed, sealed boxes at a council member’s home. Blank ballots would be sent home with a second member. Sunday morning, three boxes each containing some 500 completed ballots arrived at council headquarters still wrapped in tape with signatures intact. Results were tallied, certified and released late Sunday afternoon.
So who will control parking on Venice’s parking-poor streets? If these referendums stick, it’s folks able to pay for permits for themselves, visitors and guests. Apart from the homeless, the overnight parking district issue has also pitted block against block, neighbor against neighbor, in a battle over preferential parking. Those living on Venice’s walk streets and Boardwalk will not be able to vote on OPD designation in their neighborhoods. Like Saturday’s election, democracy is selective — some may vote, others may not.
For City Councilman Bill Rosendahl, the sale of permits and visitor passes along with fines generated by the new parking rules mean a new source of revenue for City Hall, fees that “may soon go up” according to L.A.’s Department of Engineering which says the yearly tab will more than double:
Bottom line: A residence with three permitted vehicles and two visitor passes buys 50 one-time guest permits over the course of 12 months. That’s $338 for on-street parking the year. Rosendahl, who has spent his first term monetizing virtually every available parking spot in Venice, successfully urged L.A.’s Bureau of Engineering to dismiss more than 100 appeals filed by Venice residents challenging OPD approval.
And the homeless? Rosendahl talks vaguely of parking zones in industrial and sparsely populated areas, though no such facilities exist now or are planned for the foreseeable future. Currently up for reelection, Rosendahl seems unlikely to side with homeless over homeowners on this emotional issue, especially residents claiming syringes, urine and feces are routinely dumped in their yards by the vehicular homeless. (None have yet offered proof of the alleged points and poo.)
In-vehicle living is illegal in L.A., though difficult to to enforce effectively despite accounts of cops rousting the sleeping homeless. Overnight parking zones would require homeless RVs, vans and cars to leave Venice streets — by 2am each morning or face stiff fines — an anywhere-but-here solution.
Regardless of voters’ individual motives, Saturday’s vote was a wake-up call for a neighborhood council ill-prepared to handle large scale elections and community involvement. Some Venetians are calling for a new vote, though Saturday’s balloting is largely symbolic.
The final decision will be made by the California Coastal Commission following hearings in Marina Del Rey in March. CCC has for decades rejected permit parking in Venice, fearful of limiting beach access by the general public. Inside observers feel that position is unlikely to change.
All of this has had me looking into L.A.’s past for historical perspective.
What do you suppose Ma Joad might think of the campaign to boot homeless car and RV-dwellers out of Los Angeles neighborhoods?
After all, the matriarch of John Steinbeck’s 1939 novel The Grapes of Wrath knew a thing or two about hard times, and how foreclosure — then and now — can force a family into a life on the streets in a rolling, run-down wreck like the Joads’ old Hudson truck.
Ma might say not much has changed in 70 years for folks struggling to find a home and steady job. In 1936, 136 LAPD officers were dispatched to sixteen locations along California’s borders where they erected legally-questionable “bum blockades” and shooed away homeless dustbowl Okies — anywhere but here.
What’s so different today? Chasing away the homeless is no longer a pricey law enforcement budget item. Now, the City of Los Angeles has figured out how to turn homeless-rousting into a municipal profit center. That’s progress for ya.
Posted by February 22nd, 2009
Comments (25)
February 22nd, 2009 at 7:06 pm
Total nightmare at the polls yesterday, poorly organized, made no sense for there to be such a long line.
The information was worded so horribly that most people DIDN’T understand it.
Can someone come up with a clear, concise sentence on these ballots?
The 2 people in front of me who were OPPOSED to parking permits, both showed up with those yellow flyers which are PRO PERMIT!!! We got to talking and they were clearly against it but were unsure because of wording on those stupid yellow flyers. If they were both confused, don’t you think the others were also? I actually read the ballot, it made no sense.
When I filled out the exit poll, I noticed that that also made no sense, it was full of NO and YES instead of YES and NO. I only know of 1 person who was voting for the permits, so you better make sure that people actually understood how they were voting. It was worded so only a lawyer would understand it, and that is NOT FAIR.
February 23rd, 2009 at 10:28 am
revenue generated from parking enforcement is always really just a poverty tax. after all, who parks in the street? those who can’t afford the additional expense of renting a parking space, or renting an apartment that comes with one. or those who are just drifting west, which is apparently still a “problem”.
bravo on shining the light on this one!
February 23rd, 2009 at 11:18 am
Great article on your webpage. It’s pretty disappointing how this whole thing went down… I’m glad you were able to record it. I hope this is the lowest of the low and our local politics point up!
February 23rd, 2009 at 11:19 am
Precisely the sort of ham fisted response that will backfire and alienate/render adversarial so called “authorities” who will find themselves grossly outnumbered by the vast new waves of formerly paying mortgage holders…who will note that people like Bernie Madoff are still living in luxury.
February 23rd, 2009 at 12:21 pm
Without evidence you misrepresent the motives of the majority of Venice voters when you allege that they voted “to drive away folks living in vehicles parked on Venice streets.” Many of us were reluctant to vote for a measure that made things harder for the genuinely homeless. But besides the homeless, there are vacationers and patrons of the many bars and restaurants that make parking outside out homes difficult and often impossible.
Venice lots frequently don’t allow for two-vehicle parking and force residents to rely on street parking. We voted to be able to park outside our homes, as everyone else in LA can do. We are the only beachfront community that has been denied overnight parking restrictions, which has led to so many non-Venetians using our streets for parking. Most of us are not heartless and unthinking individuals who declare “anywhere but here” as you make out with no evidence. We simply want Venice to have the same parking restrictions as the rest of the city enjoys. So please stop misrepresenting us.
February 23rd, 2009 at 2:41 pm
When did it become a “right” to charge yourself and your neighbors to park in front of your home?
Some people seem to have forgotten that we live in the coastal zone and enjoy the “right” to walk to the beach. I’d give up the pay parking “right” anyday to be able to live by the beach.
We don’t own the beach, or access to it. The people of California own it.
February 23rd, 2009 at 6:31 pm
If any city wants to double their parking, they they could get rid of 99% of the RED ZONES, which are unused 99% of the time & could be used for private parking!
People defend these blindly, saying they are necessary for Safety. Typically, in towns like Santa Whatever, I’ve seen them close down the residential streets 4-ways for a 2-old lady fender bender. They only need a few feet between automobiles for paramedics & firefighters to get a gurney or hose through.
Get real!–Some of the biggest red curb zones lie fallow & adjacent to the huge empty curbs that border (ready?) “pay parking lots on the beaches.” Are they afraid the sand is going to catch fire–or the ocean?
Red zones appear to me as symbolic chest-beating by ‘the powers that be’ trying to bully us into submission; or those powers protecting some private parking lot owner’s financial stake out of the blind loyalty of cronyism who are attempting to bully you into paying for parking.
Unless a vehicle is blocking an intersection, driveway, entrance, exit or fire hydrant there is little need for these expanded ‘Government Awareness Zones’. “This is the Captain, this is the Captain… that is all!”
We seem so reluctant to admit there are too many of these huge, exotic red curb zones taking up space as if they were sacred areas, inviolable & impossible to minimize, much less abolish. They probably paved over some wetland or other natural paradise to make these ugly parking lots that do nearly nothing but take up space most of the time UNLESS people are FORCED to pay the price. Why not just do away with private parking lots instead?
A good example is the huge parking lot between North & South Venice Boulevard which is empty all week long, all month & all year, except for a half-day Farmers Market. Is this a good use of resources? It could be lent to the Artists who entertain tourists on the promenade the other 6-1/2 days. Or allow the homeless to park there at night & give the residents the spaces closer to their homes.
Personally, I’d socialize all lands within a mile of any saltwater beachfront around the perimeter of the US. Most Americans spend their lives landlocked in the interior & don’t deserve to be gouged by the predators who got there first when they finally get to take a vacation.
If you really want to beautify Venice or any other Beach town, why get rid of the human element that renders individual soul & character to each place? Get rid of the ugly, fallow, extraneous blacktop, concrete & cement.
“They paved paradise & put up a parking lot” -Joni Mitchell
February 24th, 2009 at 11:49 am
People living west of lincoln boulevard should have the same rights as everyone else in the city to choose, period.
February 24th, 2009 at 2:45 pm
Jim Smith asks, “When did it become a “right” to charge yourself and your neighbors to park in front of your home? ”
It is not a right to park in front of your home, BUT it is a right to enjoy the enforcement of existing laws. An ordinance exists that says you may not live in a vehicle on public streets; that’s what trailer parks and camp grounds are for.
Venice is a residential community and not zoned as a trailer park.
The OPD system is an attempt to enforce an existing law that the police will not, or can not, enforce. That some Venice residents are willing to pay an extra $15 per year, on top of already high property taxes, to have an existing law enforced is a testament to how frustrated they have become.
— Paul T.
February 24th, 2009 at 10:08 pm
As noted in the article, if this passes, the City of LA can charge as much as they want, to ALL of us, renters and owners, and its alot more than $15 folks. You just opened the doors to being ripped off yet again by the City of LA. Do you think any of the money will be put back into Venice? NO WAY. I can tell you about an amazing 4 foot across pothole in the alley at Riviera and Horizon, that I have personally called the City of LA 3 times in 2 years to fix. Do you think they care about Venice citizens? They just look at us as a bunch of suckers willing to line their pockets. We are LUCKY to live on the coast, it is a privilege and I cannot believe the entitlement and shame that came out of this election just to get rid of a few RV’s. Shame on all of you for voting for these permits, I have lived 3 and 5 blocks from the beach in prime Venice locations and had very few issues with parking, my hatred for others doesn’t outweigh my belief that at the end of the day I would rather see an ocasional RV over by the Skills Center than give $15 to $300 a year to the City of LA so I can kiss their ass and part my compact car. They will be raising those costs every single year until you suckers can’t afford it and then lets see who complains when everything costs money!! Next thing you know they will charge us to lock up our bikes on Abbott Kinney and Rose Ave. Venice has gone to the snobs instead of the dogs. I hope you stupid, overpaid white folks are happy. Where does it say that it will ONLY be $15 per year?? And for how long?
***Cars suck, ride a bike***
February 24th, 2009 at 10:16 pm
Oh, not to mention the circling City Traffic Control cars that will be driving by hour after hour, day after day, giving tickets 365 days a year to anyone hwo might be double parking to drop off their grocery bags, letting their dog out, dropping off a friend, running upstairs to grab their surfboard, etc. etc. Get used to seeing those assholes roaming your streets on a regular basis. They aren’t there to help, they are getting paid $10.85/hr with your tax dollars to give you and your guests more tickets. I only wanted to live in Venice because it was so different than the rest of LA, but thanks for changing that and making it as limiting and rediculous as everywhere else. I guess its worth it right, those horrid RVs will all be gone and roses and tulips will start to grow out of the sidewalks and mailboxes everywhere!! Yay, permit parking saves the day and brings joy and rainbows to babies everywhere. Give me a BREAK. You just ruined our community spirit. All you needed to do was to vote against permits and start attending the VNC meetings and get something better passed to address the RVs, not change the structure of the entire community and 100 years of progress. You know that people will be selling those permits on Craigslist for twice what they are worth, just wait.
February 24th, 2009 at 10:20 pm
Apparently not. Please do us all a big favour, those of us who have lived this reality for years, and please make responsible choices with your journalism henceforth.
I would be happy to furnish you with all documentation of the degradation of our neighbourhood, including that of all forms of media/journalistic coverage in the past 12 months alone. Or, perhaps you would like to come and see for yourself? Come any day to 3rd/4th/5th and Rose and have a walk around. Just be careful not to step into fecal matter, or just hope that the elderly people who live in this neighbourhood, our tiniest baby who sleeps next to a wall constantly ravaged by streaming human fecal matter haven’t stepped into it either. Hopefully you won’t cut your feet on broken bottles of urine or YES…a needle. NOBODY, not a homeless person nor an aged person, nor a baby , nor a black,white, straight, gay Chinese person, nor a male , female or eunuch human being should have to be subjected to this complete disregard for others. I am sure that you would agree….and this is not an “allegation”.
NS
February 24th, 2009 at 11:39 pm
I’ve sent along my email address, Nikoletta. Looking forward to seeing your poo pics.
February 25th, 2009 at 3:03 am
Although I am not a fan of OPD’s I must agree with NS. I live near Rose & 6th. There is an armada of motorhomes parked in the area. We have lived with enough garbage, feces, urine, day drinking, panhandling and loitering. It sounds like many residents are not aware of the severity of the problem here.
February 25th, 2009 at 8:34 am
First of all why is this is parking permit issue when it’s more of find a place for RVs to park issue? We should have been voting for the city to do something about that instead.
Believe me I know first hand the parking permit nightmare from other parts of LA. It is soley a way for the City to make more and more $$, and the permits will go up steadily cause they now look after your “parking spot” $15 a year is bulls@#% – You are billed quarterly and huge restrictions on how many guest/extras you can get. And don’t even think of having a party or all of your family visit unless they rent an RV from them to come over in(oops sorry that’s another issue). I have seen massive City mishandling of the permits. They cashed your check – you didn’t receive your permit in the mail. They say they never received your check – you tell them the bank shows it as cashed – they say send proof – meanwhile no permit and now tickets for parking w/o a permit are piling up. And then you finally say to hell with it and send a new check and now they say you’ve missed a quarter and have to refile. I have seen and dealt with this exact scenario with people in other areas of LA final resorting to making bogus permits out of frustration. You guys have no idea how out of whack this will get … because you have never had to deal with the bureaucratic nightmare that is City of LA. It is my job and I do it on a regular basis. Like most government offices the pencils aren’t that sharp there.
Nothwithstanding that this is an enormous selfish act. Me Me Me… I’m the most important person in the whole wide world. All About Me. It’s so sad what we have become and what we are raising our children to see.
Good luck with that.
February 25th, 2009 at 12:24 pm
SCAPEGOATING 101 is a typical ploy of petty beaurocrats throughout History, who having done little for a community during their term of office, attempt to get re-elected on some initiative, whether good or bad (but usually the latter) which they hope to be perceived as their legacy. This practice is ancient & goes hand-in-hand with the usual overtime governmental duties, such as fiddling while their city burns & blaming the people nobody likes as the perpetrators, resulting in building popularity as well as a pretty, new town!
CAUGHT IN THE MIDDLE: I’m considered a successful working artist who contributes to the location where I work. I hate to get shunned because a few dirty do-nothings whom I do not consider my colleagues have genuinely offended local residents. I dislike being called the “H” Word. I’m aware of the problem of campers on a street who in addition to making things look sloppy will camp together, especially the rude & inconsiderate. I try not to park near them & hate their noise. I’ve chewed some of them out for these issues, but try to stay clear of them. Yes, I travel, work & remain somewhere until the locals come out with torches & pitchforks to roust those ‘gypsies’ because the good citizens are confused, over-taxed, disgruntled at their jobs, lives & parking situations & generally misled by those leading them.
Even local cops (here and elsewhere) have complimented my body of work on a number of occasions & intimate that they wish there was more like it. This, I assume, is probably because my painting actually relates to the place I am in, rather than my trying to import some other culture in the name of free speech. I’m always amazed at the fact tourists fly half-way around the World to chuckle at the “I LIKE KETCHUP ON MY KETCHUP” T-shirts that Venice (and K-Mart Worldwide) are known for.
URBAN LEGENDS: The feces, urine & needles “heresay” is nearly as ancient as the baby-stealing gypsy woman story I first heard in Italy about 30 years ago, only to hear that one repeated by someone just a few weeks back. Such verbal vehicles are known as urban legends & usually begin with the words, “they say…” in order to prop up the notion that there was an eye-witness to the event, whose name is authoritatively & reverently referred to as, ‘THEY’.
PUBLIC BATHROOMS: I’ve lived all over the World, yet nowhere do they lock the public restrooms at night except in the good ole’ USA. Knowing this, I personally employ a Coleman Port-a-Potty & use that purple formaldehyde junk you put in an RV holding tank. But, even when our public bathrooms ARE open & functioning, they are pitiful in comparison to such amenities in other countries & I’ve noticed the tourists here are appalled at their state. Some of the wealthiest communities on the Coast have had the worst public facilities I’ve ever seen. The Health Department does nothing about it! We might sadly have an outbreak of Cholera or Hepatitis A to teach us that people need open bathrooms at night. I’m sure in our Puritan-thinking, we are already imagining the kinds of horrors & abuses that would take place in these facilities if they remained open. But I think the end justifies the means. I guess Europeans learned something from the Plagues of the Middle Ages. At least they have something to write home about!
“Dear Wensaslaus, Americans like ketchup on their ketchup, feed the homeless bran muffins, lock the bathrooms at night & laugh. They spend billions on pets & interact by lowering their gaze & letting their dogs first meet (exchanging their pets’ names, sex, & pedigree), before speaking to their other owners…” Anyway, if you leave public bathrooms open all night, people will use them. -And tell those dogs to pick up after themselves! (They don’t have opposable thumbs, otherwise they’d be blogging this.)
I made a point to speak to a Parking Captain, who informed me you’re supposed to move a vehicle every 72 hours or the thing can be chalked, ticketed or towed. (So much for the ever-green notion of parking your gas-guzzler & biking to work.) With all of these NO-Zones & street-sweeping tickets (city taxes we pay for our not having permits) you have to really want or need to BE somewhere to camp out. It’s kind of like sleeping outside of the Apple Store in order to be first in line for a new product. The Venice artist boardwalk is in fact “first come, first serve. Vans & RV’s are super-cramped. I should rather pay $400 to sleep on someone’s kitchen floor (I’m told)–but I can’t afford it on an artist’s tips. Someone mentioned Trailer Parks & Campgrounds—not near enough to facilitate dragging heavy show equipment to the Beach. Again, that’s paying the inflated rent for little more than the living & storage space you already brought with you & pay for gas, smog, registration, repairs & fines to cart around.
TWEETING THE GOOD NEWS: According to the Santa Monica website, 85% of the City ARE Artists. For joy, for joy! This claim makes me wonder who is actually running that place, since Artists tend to have both feet off the ground. Assertions like that always puzzle me because if you spend 60 hours a week as a fast food restaurant employee or bookstore manager– are you still an artist? Would you even have time? It would seem as though you would more apt to be bitter at the current tradeoff you are making with your life & having to shelf your artistic talents until some later date, which would most assuredly cause you to vote in the manner Venice Citizens have recently expressed. So, perhaps some of these Votes, Ordinances & Opinions are framed out of professional jealousy aimed at the alleged competition. Ouch!
The reason I never go to certain cities (although invited) is because they do not supply me housing, a campground or even a parking space. I pay tribute to the people & the town & instead of giving me the ‘keys to the city’ they lock the bathrooms at night & attempt to ban me from their streets. Lately, I have been feeling unappreciated by the crowds & a real lack of giving (showing love in tangible terms). I’m receiving only a pittance, so maybe it’s time to go. If the vote follows suit, it is going to prevent me & a lot of others like me from remaining here.
I don’t have a trust-fund & haven’t won the lottery. (Urban Legend has it that those Artists make bank & they don’t pay taxes! Poof!) Living meagerly as I do permits me to give ALL to entertaining YOUR visitors, in Venice or elsewhere. To reiterate, if wrapped up in your work-a-day world, I would not have time to do that—to draw visitors here. No, it’s not like a permanent vacation under the palm trees—it’s like a permanent job under them – a job where you don’t get a paycheck. So it’s really up to you (since I wasn’t allowed to vote.) But after your 60 hour work week which you do in order to live in an overpriced watershed, I don’t think you’ll have the time, energy or inspiration to go out to the Boardwalk & entertain the entertain tourists. And according to Venice Recreation, whom I spoke to recently–the Artists are the main draw to this town!
February 25th, 2009 at 1:48 pm
LA is moving to Venice & their prototype is Santa Monica. These are businessmen dictating policy for all residents & artists who wind up stuck in the middle & pawing at each other’s throats. These guys are all laughing.
If you follow the money trail, who is going to benefit from it all. Certainly not the potholes in the streets. Throwing money at the problem (as we all seem to be so fond of in the USA) will not solve the problem. It will go, as it already does, to further line someone’s already full pockets!
A lady resident told me on a bus in Venice they just doubled the parking fines here, so she was riding the bus. Did they warn us? Did you see any improvement since?
If you nick a light & get caught on camera it’s a $700 fine or 50 hours community service! Have you ever slammed on the brakes & had everything hit you in the back of the head. Stoplights can be staggered & timed to prevent/allow for that sort of thing. Unless you want your kids hitting the dashboard! 1/100th of a second?
Laguna is another example of an Artist’s Colony which has become so hoity-toity, no artist can paint outdoors for fear the City might think they can potentially be offered money for what they are working on & sell something. How horrible to think they might do that! (Attention! Gallery Lobbyists at work!)
The overlords don’t want us to have a cash economy at all. This is good for them. They want a record of every single transaction (credit).
To parody the Wolf in the Little Red Ridinghood Childrens’ Tale, “The better to TAX you, my dear…” And the wolf was not her Grannny–he was a predator, trying to devour her! Have you ever noticed how poor government’s hearing can be? That’s so you can get real close before they gobble you up!
Laws should be like clothes–designed to FIT the people who are intended to wear them. Once you are “pursuaded by a perceived crisis” to accept the proposed solution & vote in favor of pass a one-size-fits-all law (another hidden tax), you open are opening a can of worms.
It’s almost impossible, (once a city gets used to tapping a particular vein of yours) to get them to stop.
February 25th, 2009 at 2:33 pm
On a positive note – it was good to see an enthusiastic turnout for the OPD vote – finally, Venice is stepping up to the plate and participating in our local community decisions.
Whether or not we all agree on the permit parking issue – we have an opportunity to come together to solve our problems collectively, rather than relying on a small minority of Neighborhood Council board (bored?) members to watch out for us.
Yes, the election was a fiasco and more reminiscent of high school than “serious” community politics – but it was fun! I remember standing in the polling room as a crowd of confused voters milled around me trying to interpret the initiatives on the ballot! Had I been so disposed, I could have voted several times, brought in my friends to vote several times and nobody would have been the wiser!
It’s a shame that no special access was made available to the disabled and the elderly, many of whom found it impossible to stand in line for an hour or more to vote.
I’m sure we’ll hear more about this before the dust resettles – namely, the Coastal Commission will have the final say. However, let’s not forget that L.A. City Council member, Bill Rosendahl, took $75,000 from the Venice Specific Fund last year and gave it to the city’s Bureau of Engineering to do a “survey” last June. That money would have been better spent on more trash cans and public toilets in Venice!
February 25th, 2009 at 8:26 pm
Bravo. Yes, there’s always a silver lining. But I stayed away only because of the confusing language, not of the ballot, although it was –but because of the laundry list of WHO qualified to VOTE in the first place.
One flyer said just 18 & a D.L. & another had a list of specifics that sounded beyond reach even though I have a CA Driver’s License. It would have been a day off from my job painting & hey I would have been hurting for that $12 that I made in the 8 hours I worked. Really!
Seagull-proof trashcans would clean up the streets. The Homeless get the blame for that. I’ve seen a perfectly clean college parking lot get completely trashed in under an hour by a bunch of gulls getting into one of the cans. I’ve seen them do a whole dumpster just off the boardwalk.
Have a better one. Maybe we can get permits (if it comes to that) for being a working artist here; a credit to the community. I’m sure it will come down to the address thing as always though.
February 26th, 2009 at 9:10 am
Mr. Linder and readers,
The problem with the whole OPD situation is that the
“anti-gentrification” people are hiding their true agenda behind “increased taxation based on paying to park in front of your house” and the fact that it might not help a small group of people who live west of Speedway. They talk about freedom and beach access and contend that the RV situation is a separate issue and our Councilman is presently working on a solution…
The city has been “working on a solution” for many years but realistically found that the City Attorney’s office is concerned about liabilities and insurance and private lots must be insured by the owners – no one wants to be responsible for irresponsible transients.
Even the non-profit social services that provide showers, counseling, laundry and a mail drop for the homeless are not in a position to oversee and insure even a small group of RVs on their property.
The City of LA has a law against living in vehicles on the streets or on City owned property, so this law would have to be changed FOR THE
COMPLETE CITY OF LA (not just Venice)so it is very unlikely that the City Council would vote for that as only Mr. Rosendahl seems to be interested in developing such a program.
So the answer is for the LAPD and residents to look the other way as hundreds of vehicle dwellers move onto Venice streets. This is why the community has reacted so strongly for OPDs – anything it takes to
move the vehicle dwellers on – and truthfully, nobody really cares where. They seem to go where they are allowed to hang out.
The anti-gentrificationists are presently organized by the Free Venice Beachhead Collective and their self appointed spokes-organization, The Venice Town Council. With the Beachhead crowd, I’m reminded of the Marlon Brando character in the film, The Wild One being asked, “What are you rebelling against,” and he answers “What have you got!”
I really want to out these people – they are hiding their true agenda – I always want to ask, Exactly, what is it that you REALLY want???
They appear to feel that the world has been totally screwed up by rich people, so since they can’t get at the captains of industry and finance, they will go after the closest thing that they can find to punish for a perceived prosperity…….. US! Venice homeowners and longtime residents.
Yes, it is US who have “invited the real estate corporations and big developers to town to line our pockets with gelt derived from selling out bohemian Venice. ” This thinking goes on even in light of the
present international financial crisis.
They don’t see that many of us will have to face our own uninvited financial consequences……….. they only see that they hope that we all have subprime loans and are overextended to the point of walking away from our ill-gotten properties, hence, values and rents will go down…….. property will go begging while the yuppies go home to live with mom and dad.
DELUSIONAL, and mean, misplaced anger to boot.
Too many ungraded, social structure and Poly-Sci classes, not enough business and marketing……. If prices here fell to 50% of value, the REAL rich people would buy two or three lots, tear down the houses and build new estates, turning this place into a new North of Montana. IT’S THE BLOODY BEACH!!!
It goes like this:
Squalor and crime really bug us – SO we have to PAY for living in Venice by having to live with squalor and crime. It is our penance, it is our fine. We should move if we don’t like it – It comes with the
town and “real Venetians” KNOW that this is good because it keeps the yuppies and rich people away, and that is how we like it. You should like it too – OR MOVE!
The schools are another way to keep yuppies away – thank both LAUSD and the UTLA as well as “who knows” in city government. Most people I know here with children must send them to very expensive private schools in order to get a competent education.
95% of all social services on the west side are in Venice. Most of their “clients” are “outreached” from other areas and brought here for services. Outside of the 517 low income units in Oakwood, how many
“poor” people could afford the substantial rents. This is where they bring the poor and desperate for help that the worst cases refuse.
But who cares, there are a group of people in Venice who always will organize to oppose positive changes and support crime and squalor by calling it art…… and, heavens, we can’t let the homeless stay here
in the Palisades and Brentwood …….Oh, and here is my check for your campaign fund….
Rick Feibusch
Former and Founding VNC Boardmember
member, Mobility Action Committee
coordinator, Rose Ave Working Group
editor Venice WatchDawg
February 27th, 2009 at 1:11 pm
I got a good T-Shirt idea out of all this:
“YOU’RE BEGINNING TO LOOK LIKE PART OF OUR CULTURE SO MOVE YOUR VAN!”
-zEROg
February 27th, 2009 at 2:01 pm
OK, didn’t read that one from you Michael–Linder replies…till now…
My comment is:
Yeah, there are all kinds of Draconian Laws on the Books made to address different problems at different times which is why they seem so harsh & cruel at others.
Hey–I was making out with my girlfriend & the cops knocked. 3 am. This was not in LA. We were grown people too & not drinking. We got a warning. 6 others got tickets. I still parked there later on from time to time & never got hassled. It was the Hotel Owners calling them.
Some laws are difficult if not impossible to enforce. Some things are law-enforcement nightmares. Like watching all the time to see if someone is selling something legal, in a way that circumvents the law. It’s beneficial & people want it, but local business competitors don’t want the competition so they frame an ordinance prohibiting that style of competition from happening there.
That’s not the Spirit that built this country, guys. That’s what Obama is saying. Pull together or the World will pull us apart. Who gives a crap about parking if you get terminal cancer?
Law & Love are like oil & water–they’ll never mix & you can only hope that they coexist side by side because you need them both at different times.
The thing is: Is it morally conscionable to pull out the awful sledge hammer of justice because someone or many of them (over 100,000 in LA alone) went broke (are poor)-got screwed over?
Already existing laws were thrown out when the highest Court in LA (Woman Judge, look it up) overturned all the anti-homeless ticket targeting which was up to $2,000 a night. (I’ll send the link–but this is about 2 years ago here in LA)
The final decision she wrote & was printed in the Times was that THIS Law was unfairly targeting a certain people rather than a certain behavior & was therefore descriminatory & uninforceable.
If these people had the financial savvy that made others secure, they’d be you & sad to say, perhaps you’d also be forced to be them because there was nothing left after they took it all.
I get some of the same baloney when I park in a parking lot to go into a store, or am sleeping inside a Family-members house & am parked outside. And my vehicle is not that bad.
I think this is about older cars. I still do body work on mine. Because of the proximity to the ocean, this lasts about 6 months if done right. Salt & marine layer.
February 27th, 2009 at 2:12 pm
Busy & haven’t found it yet there are so many–check this little Google & the LA Unfair quote:
Sunday, April 16, 2006
Homeless Camping, A Legal Victory
In this story from Saturday’s Bee it appears the ability to camp in a city’s open space without restriction may have obtained legal standing, and this has impact in Sacramento as the article notes, as these arguments have been used here to drop charges of illegal camping in the Parkway.
While it may be compassionate to the unfortunate individuals and families without a roof over their head, it places a severe handicap on areas, such as the American River Parkway, and the adjacent communities, where illegal camping becomes an issue of public safety, trash accumulation, and habitat destruction.
Here is an excerpt.
Court: L.A. law is unfair to homeless
By Claire Cooper — Bee Legal Affairs Writer Published 2:15 am PDT Saturday, April 15, 2006
SAN FRANCISCO – Because thousands of homeless people in Los Angeles have no shelters to turn to, a federal appeals court ruled Friday that the city violates their rights by enforcing its broad ban against sitting, lying or sleeping on public streets and sidewalks.
The Eighth Amendment, which prohibits “cruel and unusual punishments,” bars punishment of “involuntary sitting, lying or sleeping on public sidewalks that is an unavoidable consequence of being human and homeless without shelter in the City of Los Angeles,” said a divided panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
The decision, written by Judge Kim Wardlaw of Pasadena, was a rare victory for the homeless against cities that have attempted to eradicate signs of their presence by using various “anti-camping” ordinances.
In the Los Angeles case, unlike some others that cities have won, homeless advocates presented undisputed evidence of a shortage of shelter beds. Los Angeles also has a broader law than other cities. It allows public sitting only on benches or during permitted parades.
Friday’s ruling did not strike down the law but required that it be narrowed.
The decision was based on 1960s-vintage U.S. Supreme Court decisions barring punishment of alcoholics and drug addicts on the basis of their addiction.
In a dissent, 9th Circuit Judge Pamela Rymer, also of Pasadena, said the high court’s decisions were applicable only to crimes of status and not crimes of conduct.
Los Angeles doesn’t punish people “simply because they are homeless” but because they sit, lie or sleep on city sidewalks, conduct “that can be committed by those with homes as well as those without,” Rymer wrote.
She said “neither the Supreme Court nor any other circuit court of appeals has ever held that conduct derivative of a status may not be criminalized.”
The 9th Circuit majority, however, found conduct and status inseparable in the Los Angeles case, “given that human beings are biologically compelled to rest.”
Joining Wardlaw was Edward Reed Jr., a Nevada U.S. district judge assigned to the case.
The majority opinion repudiated a lower court’s 1994 decision in San Francisco that homelessness was not a status protected by the Eighth Amendment.
By ordering an injunction against Los Angeles, the 9th Circuit also went well beyond a 1998 state Court of Appeal decision that permits homeless Californians to beat criminal charges after they’re hauled into court by raising a defense of “necessity.”
The circuit judges said six homeless plaintiffs who sued are entitled “at a minimum” to a “narrowly tailored injunction” that will permit them to sit, lie down or sleep “at certain times and/or places.”
It will be up to a trial judge to set the injunction’s terms.
Similar issues have been raised in Sacramento, where local laws make it illegal to sleep, urinate, drink or store one’s belongings in public.
Posted by David H. Lukenbill at 10:05 AM
February 27th, 2009 at 2:15 pm
Don’t have time to find it & had there been text tools I would’ve italicized it, but this is the crux of it as per above:
In a dissent, 9th Circuit Judge Pamela Rymer, also of Pasadena, said the high court’s decisions were applicable only to crimes of status and not crimes of conduct.
Los Angeles doesn’t punish people “simply because they are homeless” but because they sit, lie or sleep on city sidewalks, conduct “that can be committed by those with homes as well as those without,” Rymer wrote.
She said “neither the Supreme Court nor any other circuit court of appeals has ever held that conduct derivative of a status may not be criminalized.”
The 9th Circuit majority, however, found conduct and status inseparable in the Los Angeles case, “given that human beings are biologically compelled to rest.”
February 27th, 2009 at 2:38 pm
Michael,
You wrote:
“If approved, a Venice OPD will prohibit walk street residents and those near the beach from parking on Venice streets.”
This isn’t correct. They won’t get to vote for wether or not to have OPDs on the streets adjacent to their homes, but they absolutely get to buy permits, just like their neighbors.
I don’t know how this rumor got spread, but I’ve heard it a lot. Yet when I talked to folks at DOT, Rosendahl’s office, and the Neighborhood Council, they all say this isn’t the case. Any resident on a walk street or those near Speedway are can buy permits if they need to.
Also, I’d like to point out it’s highly unlikely OPDs will happen anywhere near Speedway. The parking there is already highly restricted (2 hour zones, no parking between 8am to 8pm, etc) so there isn’t really any need to restrict parking any further.