Lincoln Place Lives!

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 http://www.freevenice.org/City-AIMCO-Agreement.

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

RV Residents Under Gun (stick); Showdown is June 10

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?

Letters

• 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

Venice Hosts Produce Exchange – Share the Surplus!

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.

“Death by Police Car” Victim’s Family Files Suit

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.

Color Comes to the Beach

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.

Medical Marijuana Muddle

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.

Coming Next Month: The Beachhead’s Annual Venice Celebration Issue.

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

Vote NO on Prop. 14

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?

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