All Shook Up

By John Davis

The pressure wave came first in the form of an audible boom followed by the shock wave .The earthquake was caused by a fault one mile North West of Marina del Rey, directly off of Venice Beach. If you stood at the end of the Venice Pier it would be very near.

Other active offshore faults exist in and near the bay. A geologic (study of the earth) fault is a crack in the rock layers below caused by various underground pressures that cause rock layers to settle and shift.

If you can imagine a tasty but brittle graham cracker breaking you will understand what a fault is. Now imagine a stack of delicious crackers that are intact with the broken one at the bottom.

The weight of the crackers on top can cause the cracked one below to shift. Sometimes distant earthquakes can move the local fault just enough to trigger another quake.

When this happens an earthquake occurs at depth and the effects are felt at the surface. The underground origin point is called the epicenter of the quake.

In the case of the Venice Beach Quake the epicenter of the temblor was 4.6 miles below the surface, about the same distance to LAX from Venice. If you have ever walked a mile you can get an idea of how far below the surface that is.

The movement of the rocks can displace the sea and translate into a fast high wave. Sometimes underwater canyons get shaken causing underwater landslides which can also trigger deadly tsunamis. Our local underwater canyon is the Santa Monica Canyon and it abruptly plunges to a depth of 2000 ft with very steep walls.

On January 23 at 7:44 pm residents as far as Santa Monica, Culver City, and Westchester felt the earth move. People closer to the source reported hearing a sort of boom then the jolt. I was in Westchester in my car and felt a gentle ripple. The good news is there was no Tsunami. The other good news is our Councilperson, Bill Rosendahl, had the foresight to insist Tsunami Warning Signs be placed in Venice recently to help people prepare in advance.

The bad news is we still live in earthquake country and should always be prepared with enough water for three weeks, a lot of canned food, a can opener, medicine, a radio with extra batteries or a wind-up unit, and a family plan. You should think in advance about what to do if you are separated from family because of school or work. Discuss what your family will do if this happens so that everyone will remain as calm as possible.

Surviving a disaster starts with a plan. Panic is not an option.

What Should Be Done With The Postal Annex?

By Carolyn Rios

As reported in last month’s Beachhead, the Postal Annex on Windward Circle is up for sale.

This is the last available site in Venice that could solve our two biggest problems – parking and homelessness. The Postal Annex is the perfect site for:

1.  Ground-level parking, desperately needed in Venice due to severe overdevelopment and use of “grandfathered” parking spots.  This lot is conveniently located close to both the beach and the Abbot Kinney business district. Parking fines and fees have been put aside for years that could help fund this proposal.

2. Transitional housing on the 2nd and 3rd stories, with full services, for 30 people, possibly modeled after the highly successful OPCC Turning Point Program in Santa Monica, which has moved 60 homeless people into permanent housing.

The postal annex is located on four major bus lines so clients can easily get to jobs, services, schools in Santa Monica, Culver City and Los Angeles.

There is funding available from both the city, and county, and probably federal government to provide these desperately needed services.

We need to identify these sources and ACT NOW before private developers get in the way.

3.  This could be a model “green” building with rooftop gardens and all, possibly opening up additional funding.

The site is large enough that the building itself could be set back 20 – 30 feet with landscaped parking to provide both beauty and privacy. Each story can be set back further with gardens on the balconies and roof.

Government officials must immediately stop any idea of selling this to private developers.

Imagine 50 or more additional parking spots between Abbot Kinney and the beach, just where they are needed the most. Imagine taking 30 homeless people each year off the beach. Imagine !!!

However the community decides to use this lot, it is vital that the community get this property for local needs.

Letters

• Postcard from Venice (Italy) – Lance Diskan
  
• Parking and Homelessness - Casey Bowen
  
• Can we work this out? – C.V. Beck
• Vote No on Measure B – Dede Audet

————-

Postcard from Venice (Italy)

Dear ‘Heads,

Carousing singers still active at 2 a.m. outside our hotel window – demonstrating roots of California Venetians in the Che Wah Wah lifestyle. 

Thought I saw Abbot Kinney this afternoon, turning the corner ahead of me in an alley.

One of life’s great treasures is to be part of a Grand Tradition. Happy 40th!

Lance Diskan

————-

Parking and Homelessness

Dear Beachhead,

As a twenty-five year resident of this amazing community, sometimes I wonder where your loyalty lies. It is certainly not with the hard working people who live here. After living on Paloma Ave. for six years I know all too well the horrendous parking situation that exists in this neighborhood. There is no other fact than this: there is not enough parking to  accommodate the legal residents of our community. 

Why when I get home from my second job at midnight do I feel blessed to find a parking spot FOUR blocks from my house!!!! Countless times I have had to pay hundreds of dollars to have my car released from the tow lot because I had no other choice but to park overnight in Gold’s Gym’s lot. 

Try carrying a sleeping two-year-old and her diaper bag and a purse and three bags of groceries from Hampton Ave. to Paloma and Speedway. Dare I mention for fear of offending the sensibilities of our homeless “residents,” how dangerous it is for a “youngish” woman to be walking this far at night through this neighborhood which is wrought with criminal activity perpetrated by your beloved homeless population. I know. I have been accosted on several occasions. I know they are not ALL criminals. 

However, it is certainly NOT the legal residents of this community committing the robberies, acts of vandalism, assaults and murders which we still find happening even with the massive overhaul of this community. 

You do realize that for every RV that is parked on our tiny, overcrowded streets, there are three to four legal residents who cannot find a place to park their cars after returning from their JOBS where they have been all day rather than lazing around in the California sunshine. Not only am I pro overnight parking permits, I am pro parking permit all day, all night, every day, always. It’s only January. As soon as summer is here, the real parking nightmare begins. Maybe, all of you who are so against OPD’s will let me and my family park in your garage.

Peace and Love
Casey Bowen

P.S.- thank you for your wonderful article on our cherished Sponto. He was a delightful fixture in the neighborhood, whom I’m sure would disagree with my opinion on parking. I wish he were here to have the debate.   

———-

Can we work this out?

Venice was mentioned on the AM radio station that I listen to, in the context of motor-vehicle living persons this morning.  Bill Rosendahl was recorded as saying that there are no more than 200 motor-vehicle living persons in Venice and he felt that — under the circumstances of the dire economic straits many people will be finding themselves in — the “overnight parking districts” were not realistic.  I thought this was pretty good news, that of realism, for a change, instead of the bombastic hyperbole we are inflicted with by the media on homeless matters.

I figured out that if you divide 200 by the 11 neighborhoods in Venice, that works out to be 18 MVLP’s per neighborhood.  That is not per block but per neighborhood.  If placement is done correctly, this should not be a real problem for anybody.  Isn’t that right?

Why don’t we see if we can work this out for a change? Times are tough, let’s not make it worse. 

– C.V. Beck

————

Vote No on Measure B

Dear Beachhead, 

When Bill Rosendahl came to the Jan. 10 DWP Workshop he asked for a show of hands of all those against Measure B. And all but one hand went up.

Then he asked for a show of hands for Measure B and I saw only one hand go up.

Finally Bill asked the assembled Neighborhood Council reps if they would be willing to listen. And almost all hands went up again.

As Soledad Garcia (Chair of the Los Angeles Neighborhood Council Coalition DWP Committee) said, “We are for solar energy. But there should have been timely notification. We think ratepayers will have to pay more for this hasty program.”

I believe Soledad is right. As with all work performed in a great hurry, this hastily cooked up proposition they call Green Energy and Good Jobs does not have the language and polish one might expect from the great City of Los Angeles. I call it the Miserable Measure B, all 27 pages.

Everyone I know is willing to do what is necessary to meet California renewable energy requirements. But why put extra stress on ratepayers? Rates will have to go up more than necessary in order to duplicate training and solar installation businesses already in place.

We are already training people for this in the public education system and there are lots of businesses in the City of Los Angeles to do the work. People ready, willing, and able to do the job right now. People who need the jobs now.

There is more to it, though. DWP reps and Measure B documentation refer to the use of “financial institutions” and “tax credits” as advantages.

Au contraire. In the first place, tax exempt organizations like DWP cannot use tax credits. And who ever heard of a financial institution doing something for nothing?

What their hasty cooking serves up is a mishmash of vague and contradictory ideas for voters in March.

Vague: that is what the judge called it when Measure B supporters hauled 8 dissenters into court for daring to say that Measure B would increase rates. “Who knows? Who knows?’ is what the judge said as he dismissed the claim.

Contradictory: in some parts of the documentation it says that DWP will “operate and maintain,” then go on to say “install/operate.” And on and on.

“…shall install, operate, maintain and repair and/or oversee the installation, operation, maintenance and repair,”

“. . .department’s ownership and operation. . .”

“…installed, owned, operated, and maintained…”

And here is the kicker:

“The Department shall own and operate all Department-installed solar power installations except as required to secure tax subsidies by permitting financial institutions to own the solar power installations, subject to a power purchase agreement with purchase options for the Department…All electric power generated pursuant to this Program shall be owned by the Department and shall be delivered directly to the Department’s electric system without first passing through the meter measuring the electric use by the host program participant.”

Over the past few years a number of financial institutions have tried this and failed when the I.R.S. determined there was an absence of business “substance” in the transactions. What happened is that municipal tax exempt organizations sold city property such as sewer systems, etc. to taxpaying financial institutions via sale/leaseback arrangements in order to confer tax benefits. But there was no business purpose in the transaction other than to confer tax benefits that the tax exempt organizations could not use. That’s a no no.

As a friend of mine remarked, “Maybe they think they can change the tax code.”

The Beachhead has always done a great job of exposing political shenanigans. I hope that Beachhead readers will see that the name “Green Energy and Good Jobs” is just a screen to cover-up a reward to political contributors.

It’s disgraceful they did not consider what the great increase in rates will do to poor people.

Thank you,

DeDe Audet

Showdown on Permit Parking? – The Main Event

THE MAIN EVENT

The California Coastal Commission has the final say, short of the courts. It will take up Venice Overnight Permit Parking at its next meeting:

10AM, Wednesday, Feb. 4

at the Huntington Beach City Hall, 

in the City Council Chambers, 

2000 Main St., Huntington Beach

Opponents of permit parking will be carpooling from the United Methodist Church at 8AM.

 

THE LOCAL EVENT

A vote will be held by the Venice Neighborhood Council on permit parking

VOTE Yes on A – VOTE No on B

12:30 – 3:30PM, Saturday Feb. 21

at the Venice Library, 520 S. Venice Blvd.

All Venice residents (including RV-livers & OFW vendors) are eligible to vote, as are landlords, businesses and workers. Bring ID.

Showdown on Permit Parking? – How Overnight Parking Districts Became An Issue in Venice?

By Peggy Lee Kennedy

The Overnight Permit Parking District law, LAMC, was put through the city council by Bill Rosendahl in 2005 and Councilman Rosendahl created districts, through resolution, without a public hearing in Venice. A committee was created by the Venice Neighborhood Council, co-chaired by Stewart Oscars with supporting members such as Mike Newhouse and Mark Ryavec, was empower by Rosendahl to solicit support for this overnight parking permit program in Venice.

Last year Councilperson Rosendahl spent $75,000 from the Venice Surplus Property Fund to pay an independent contractor to process a Coastal Development Permit application in order to create Overnight Permit Parking Districts (OPDs) that cover almost all of Venice west of Lincoln Blvd. The city is required to submit a Coastal Development Permit (CDP) application when a development affects coastal access, which includes parking restrictions in the coastal zone.

The reason for spending the $75,000 is the Bureau of Engineering, the only department qualified to process a CDP, was not staffed to expedite the application request. It would have taken them longer if they did it.

A requirement of the CDP application process is to hold a public hearing, which was June 26, 2008. It was the only real advertised public hearing. Venice opposition to the OPDs dominated the meeting. Nonetheless, the application was rubberstamped and no transcript of this hearing provided. 

Last August 26, a letter approving OPDs in Venice was mailed out by the Bureau of Engineering.  Over 100 notarized appeals were filed against this decision by the first week of September 2008. 

In November, the Board of Public Works pretended to hear the appeals and sent a Notice of Permit Issuance letter dated November 17, to the California Coastal Commission. They acted as an agent of the California Coastal Commission, denied the appeals and approved the Venice OPDs.

We had until December 22, to appeal to the Coastal Commission and 38 appeals were filed, including one from the Executive Director of the Coastal Commission. Submitting these appeals was the only way to get to the Coastal Commission.  

This is now on the meeting agenda for the California Coastal Commission February 4, and you can read all of the appeals and the staff report on-line at http://www.coastal.ca.gov/mtgcurr.html under South Coast (Los Angeles).

We encourage people to come to the meeting and write letters to the California Coastal Commission and Staff opposing the Overnight Permit Parking in Venice. 

Car pool will be leaving from the Venice United Methodist Parking Lot, Feb 4th at 8am.

Showdown on Permit Parking? – Venice Votes

By Mark Lipman

Finally, at the eleventh hour, after two years of community disenfranchisement, the stakeholders of Venice will be given a public vote on one of the most divisive issues we’ve seen since the debate over annexation to Los Angeles.  On Saturday, February 21, all are asked to turn out to vote on whether or not we as a community want to allow permit parking (also known as OPDs) in Venice.  The vote will take place from 12:30 to 3:30 at the Venice Library.  This will be our only chance to vote on the issue.

Opinions on this are as various as the Venetians who live here, so below are merely my two cents:

The entire structure of Overnight Parking Districts has been set up poorly from the beginning.  They were suggested by downtown Los Angeles specifically as a way to evict RVs from Venice (and to fill the city coffers) and were merely rubber stamped by the Venice Neighborhood Council.  They create more problems for our community and solve none, pitting one class of residents against another, while making all of us pay.  While alternate suggestions to solve our local parking problems in a fairer, more balanced way, have gone ignored, these OPDs have been shoved down our throats.

Supporters of Initiative B now state that they have a “democratic right” to establish overnight parking, yet fail to recognize that they wanted to deny Venice the democratic right for a vote on the issue from the very beginning.

Quoting Reta Moser from her Triangle Update, “Can’t believe the City of Venice could go thru the petition process for each street, get the City to spend thousands of dollars for an engineering study for each district within Venice, have a public hearing, get a vote of City Council approval, and be at the point of getting Coastal Commission approval only to find out dissidents, who have appeared at every meeting, have a petition that can trigger a costly election.  Something is wrong with the due process system.”  Agreed.  Due process would have started with a public vote, yet a handful of elitists feel that they have a right to create a domino effect on our public streets that will force all of us to pay for parking, while disenfranchising entire segments of our community.

Conversely, Initiative A restores our democratic process by giving us the vote that we should have had a long time ago.

Whatever your position on this issue, now you will have the chance to have your voice count – at the ballot box.

Vote on Saturday, February 21, 12:30 to 3:30 p.m., at the Venice Library, 520 Venice Blvd. and keep our Venice streets free.

YES on Initiative A – to overturn costly overnight parking permits in Venice. “To Fairly Represent Venice, the Venice Neighborhood Council (VNC) Must Rescind any VNC Board Approval of Overnight Parking Districts in Venice and Transmit a Letter Stating Such to the Los Angeles City Council Office, the Bureau of Engineering, the Department of Transportation, and the California Coastal Commission.”

NO on Initiative B – to keep our streets free from paid permit parking. “Venice Stakeholders re-affirm that Venice residents have the same democratic right as other L.A. residents to establish by 2/3rds petition signatures, OPDs for their blocks to preserve parking for residents and for night-time security, and call upon the VNC to communicate affirmation of this right to the pertinent governmental bodies.”

Points Opposing Overnight Parking Districts

1.   There is no way to vote NO on permit parking on your block.

2.   Anyone living west of Speedway cannot get a permit. 

3.   Creates a safety risk at night for those forced to park far from their homes (see point 2).

4.   People on walk streets do not get a vote on their blocks.

5.   Limits the amount of permits residents are able to obtain.

6.   No exemption for handicapped.

7.   Permit fees will increase every year.

8.   Will create more parking problems, not less.

9.   Another step towards the gentrification of Venice.

10. Discriminates against the poor by targeting those who are forced to live in vehicles.

11. Permits hours are from 2am to 6am, when there isn’t a parking problem.

12. Encourages drunk driving after bars close.

13. Visitor parking will be highly restricted. 

14. There are other solutions to the existing problems that have not been considered. 

15. It will become another multi-million dollar cash cow for L.A., out of our pockets.

Valid Credentials for Voting are:

A valid credential includes, but is not limited to one of the following: CA Drivers License or CA Residency Card (for an address within the VNC area); School ID Card (for a school with in the VNC boundaries); A business card (in combination with any of the following with a matching Venice address: Business license, business check, or pay stub); A recent utility bill (for an address within the VNC area); An imprinted check (including an address within the VNC area); Pay stub (from a business within the VNC area); Passport (only in combination with any other credential item); School report card (from a school with in the VNC boundaries); Property tax bill (address within the VNC area); 

Other credentials: For Church/Religious Institution within the VNC area: Letter on church letterhead with contact information from Church/ Religious institution attesting to volunteer work; Nonprofit Organization within the VNC area: Letter on organization letterhead with contact information from organization attesting to stakeholder volunteer work; Senior Group within the VNC area: Letter on group letterhead with contact information from group attesting to stakeholder volunteer work; or Venice Beach Boardwalk Public Expression Permit.

Showdown on Permit Parking? – Alternate Proposal to Permit Parking

By Mark Lipman

Preamble: A great many persons in Venice strongly oppose installing permit parking in our community for various reasons and it is improper to simply ignore their concerns.

Firstly, the proposed Overnight Parking Districts (OPDs) discriminate against very low income residents, who are forced to live in their vehicles due to the overwhelming economic crisis.

Secondly, the OPDs will force many renters and home owners to pay for parking in and around their neighborhoods.

Thirdly, the OPDs discriminate against large families and households with more than three vehicles.

Finally, the OPDs discriminate against people living near the beach, who will not be eligible for permits.

Understandably, many in our community are concerned with there being an excess of recreational vehicles parked on the streets and the various problems associated with this.  However, installing OPDs is the wrong solution to this problem.

May I propose the following more balanced approach to solving this problem:

I. Residency

Whether we like it or not, it must be recognized that for whatever reason a number of people are living in their vehicles.  According to Section 85.02 of the LAMC, this is illegal.  However, there is much acknowledgement throughout the city, on up to our own councilman Bill Rosendahl, that this is a bad law and must be changed.

Additionally, many may rightfully argue the validity of this law under the constitution.  Under the basic precepts of our freedom, the right of lifestyle choice is fundamental.

Therefore, we are forced to accept that if someone, who is housed in a vehicle chooses to live in our community they have the constitutional right to do so.

Beyond that however the city does also have the right to regulate this form of housing for the overall well being of our community as a whole.

The first order of business is to determine who and how many amongst the vehicularly housed are residents.  This will give us a good understanding of how many parking places are necessary within the Venice boundaries to accommodate our needs.

Those who desire to register as residents of Venice will then be issued a permit to be affixed to their vehicle.  By registering, this will establish residency in Venice, with the same rights and responsibilities as other residents, including the right to vote in all local elections.

II. Permits and Parking

Through the issuance of residency permits, vehicularly housed residents will be required to pay a permit fee of say $50 per year (with a recommended fee waiver or reduced fee for the first year of implementation).  This permit fee would be reflective of a property tax that could be used for community investment in needed areas such as street maintenance.

This permitting structure would shift the tax/fee burden from renters and home owners to the vehicularly housed residents, thus making it fairer for all concerned.  Renters and home owners will not be forced to pay for parking, while vehicularly housed residents will pay a reasonable fee for use of public streets and approved parking lots to live on top of legally.

In order to reduce the community impact of this arrangement the city will create preferential parking zones for RV’s and other vehicles within Venice that display the vehicular resident permit.  

There will be a study performed to determine what the best locations for these zones will be that have minimal impact to traditional residential zones.

III. Lincoln Place

One location where there is currently plenty of available street parking is in front of the housing project known as Lincoln Place.  These streets could easily accommodate many motor vehicles and could be made into preferential parking zones for RV’s.

As Lincoln Place will eventually be reopened as affordable housing, with many of the illegally evicted tenants returning, there will be a number of additional housing units available there and priority placement could be offered to those vehicular residents who choose to park in this zone of Lincoln Place.

IV. Non-Residents Living in Vehicles

Those persons choosing to opt out of becoming vehicular residents of Venice would choose to be considered as tourists, travelers, or variants of such.  For those non-residents, they would be permitted to park as normal, however the city parking control agents would be informed to strictly enforce all existing parking regulations, with particular emphasis on 72 hour parking limits.

For 72 hour parking enforcement, agents would both chalk the targeted vehicle’s tires and leave a warning ticket on the vehicle’s windshield informing them that they have been targeted for citation.

V. Enforcement of Current Laws

One additional way to increase public street parking is by enforcing the current zoning laws.  If a survey were conducted of houses in Venice, it would be found that many of the garages that were required to be built in order to receive the original building permits, have been illegally converted into ping-pong parlors and workshops, storerooms, game rooms, living rooms, offices and even apartments, instead of places to park their cars as prescribed by law.

If these property owners insist on violating the existing zoning laws, thus exasperating the parking situation, the least they can do is stop blaming RVs for the problem they helped create.

VI. Overnight Parking Districts

If after the above solutions have been implemented and there is still a need for OPDs in certain areas of our community, there would be more openness for consideration, knowing that others in our community would not be adversely affected by them. As it is the current OPD proposal being sought by the City of Los Angeles is rife with problems that detrimentally affect too many people throughout the Venice community to be the proper solution to the challenges we face. We deserve better.

First Lecture of 2009!

08:56 Tuesday, January 20, 2009, Room 236, Palms MS…..Alone, this lonely watch. Quiet for now./ The room across the hall sounded the vow,/ the oath of office sworn, could barely hear,/ but President Obama’s voice was clear./ Out in the hallway, just outside the door,/ a drinking fountain waits, ready to pour./ No sign forbidding anyone to drink./ Apparently, a few have learned to think./ Injustices die hard. But at this hour,/ Magnificent hope sparkles. There are more/ good reasons, I imagine, to set fear/ aside. Emboldened be, let us draw near,/ regroup, and join the battle. Friend and foe/ alike, will stand in silence and in awe…..

–R.F. Wagner, Jr.

Correction – Big Bill’s

 Last month, the Beachhead ran a poem and a photo about long-time Venice business, Big Bill’s. Unfortunately, the photo turned out to be the welding shop next door. This time we’re pretty sure it is Bill Big and his auto repair shop.

The March 3 Election – A Real Snoozer

If you ever wanted to miss voting in an election without having a guilty conscious, March 3 may be your day.

How can a civic-minded newspaper say such a thing. Well, you can call it being realistic. There is no serious opposition in most races. There is no “change guy” running to turn things around in L.A. Yes, the Mayor is running for reelection, but there is no well-known opposition, unless you count Zuma Dogg. Bill Rosendahl is running for reelection for city council. His only opponent is on the far rightwing of the political spectrum. 

If you decide to vote, here are the Beachhead recommendations:

For Mayor: Antonio Villaraigosa has blown it, big time. He campaigned four years ago with the support of nearly every progressive in town. He won election and was quickly seduced by the Dark Side. He even rode a corporate jet to Rosa Parks funeral. Rosa Parks, who started the civil rights movement by boycotting the segregated Birmingham, Alabama, buses. She walked, and Antonio flew in style. He could have been a positive role model of thousands of Latino youth. But he blew that one too. When Lincoln Place tenants asked for his help, he denounced them for not giving in to LP’s corporate owner. Don’t reward bad behavior with your vote.

For Council District 11: Bill Rosendahl has stood out in sharp contrast to the Mayor. He has gone to bat for Lincoln Place tenants, and he’s done the right thing on many other issues that affect Venice. Sadly, he has dropped the ball when it comes to helping the weakest among us, the homeless. Bill has talked a good game about finding places to park for those forced to live in RVs. He’s expressed compassion for our Venice neighbors who live on the street. But when it comes to action, we’re still waiting. He’s sided with the homeless haters who would impose a parking permit tax on all of us, in their misguided attempt to force the RVs out of Venice. Sorry Bill, we can’t endorse you and remain true to the homeless at the same time.

For City Attorney: Hooray, Rocky Delgadillo, our worst City Attorney, perhaps in history, is leaving office. He’s been picketed a number of times by angry tenants who resent his biased support of landlords. The favorite to succeed him is Jack Weiss, a city councilmember who has been a target of recall for all the right reasons. Jack Weiss would not be much of an improvement. Also running is Noel Weiss, a Venice resident who represents some of the Lincoln Place tenants. He’s not universally favored by the tenants, but he would be an improvement on Jack Weiss (no relation).

For Controller: Unfortunately, Laura Chick is termed out of office. Her audits kept the rest of the gang at city hall on their toes. Running to replace her are Wendy Greuel, a city councilmember, and Nick Patsaouras, a transportation expert. Greuel has done nothing to shout about during her term at city hall. On the other hand, Patsaouras is intelligent and seems honest. Qualities that might come in handy as Controller.

Other Offices: Angela Reddock, who ran against Bill Rosendahl four years ago on a platform including a moratorium on development, is running for the Community College Board of Trustees. She should be supported. Nancy Pearlman, a candidate for a different Community College seat is a Green who began running for this office in the ‘90s on a very low budget. After building name recognition, she finally won a few years ago. She’s done a good job, and is running for reelection.

The Propositions

Also on the ballot are five propositions (called Measures in Los Angeles). When it comes to propositions from the city of Los Angeles, it’s best just to vote no. Most of them involve some scheme for someone, or some group, to get rich at your expense. Other measures don’t do what the voters think they will. A case in point is the 2006 measure to increase monthly trash fees from $11 to $28 in order to hire 1,000 new LAPD officers. Didn’t happen. According to City Controller Laura Chick, much of the money was used to increase the LAPD budget without hiring new officers.  

One of them is highly controversial, even though it has an innocent sounding title, “Solar Energy and Job Creation Program.” See sidebar for the story (to the left).

Polls will be open at the usual locations on March 3 from 7 AM to 8 PM.

–The Beachhead Collective