Venice Art Scene Heavyweights Square Off Over Proposed Mural Ordinance

By Roger Linnett

What had begun nearly a year ago as a way to replace the current ban on new murals in the city of L.A. and jump start the moribund municipal public art works process came to an abrupt halt in raucous debate before the L.A. Planning Commission and illuminated a schism in L.A.’s mural community, including prominent Venice art institutions. The moratorium was prompted in the first place by the pell-mell invasion by commercial interests into the realm of the muralist in a dispute over the use of private wall spaces.

The proposed ordinance “amends Article 4.4 (the Sign Code) of the Los Angeles Municipal Code . . . [to] carve out a distinct space for murals in the City’s sign regulations . . . Additionally, Public Art Installations are included in the proposed ordinance to ensure that all public art (whether a mural or other object) is treated similarly and does not conflict with the City’s regulations pertaining to commercial messages and signage.”

But, the L.A. Department of City Planning’s (DCP) Recommendation Report was amended to include several surreptious provisions prior to its presentation, creating a furor at the July 12 Planning Commission hearing.

Among those present at the hearing was Anna Siqueiros, a prominent L.A. artist and muralist, who was among many that were outraged that the ordinance she and many others had passionately worked on for six months had been unilaterally revised. (See her report of the hearing below)

Two of these new provisions in particular caused considerable uproar.

The most egregious to traditional muralists was the re-defining of Original Art Mural to include “digitally printed images” – computerized reproduction an existing mural on vinyl, or other such substrate, installed over the original.

The muralists were particularly exercised over this expanded definition of a mural, which they contend means ‘painting on a wall’, period.

Besides being an assault on the aesthetic fundamentals of murals, traditional muralists fear these new methods will significantly impact the amount of future work available to them, hence their ability to make a living as artists.

But, more importantly to the muralists, the process of creating a work of art in the community, interacting with the local peoples so they see the mural being created and begin to think of it as something organic and integral to the neighborhood is completely lost.

A digitally created mural comes from someone in front of a computer screen, virtually alone. When the finished printed work is installed the artist may only set foot on the location for a day, or just a few hours. There is no connection made with the environs the work exists in. And isn’t a major function of art to help people connect?

The issue has also been raised as to whether these “installations” will be afforded the protections granted under the federal Visual Artists Rights Act, which ensures copyrights for the artists, but is limited to visual works that fall within a narrowly defined category.

Furthermore, they contend that painting or ink-jet printing on these artificial materials is inferior to the original process and may substantially deteriorate before the end of the two year minimum lifespan requirement that was also added to the ordinance.

Additionally, because installations are affixed to buildings or walls as opposed to being painted directly on them, the L.A. Department of Building Safety will also have to sign off on any such project, which is not an issue with traditional murals.

Emily Winters, president of the Venice Arts Council, was among those who spoke against the other contentious provision that states “No new Original Art Mural shall be placed on a lot that has an exclusively residential structure with fewer than five dwelling units.”

This provision was apparently added by the DCP in answer to a Commissioner’s concerns about a proliferation of murals on single family homes and alley walls.

But an important part of the permit process states that “The Mural Ordinance Administrative Rules to be adopted by the Department of Cultural Affairs shall include a neighborhood involvement requirement for any applicant of a new Original Art Mural to provide notice of and to hold a community meeting on the mural proposal at which interested members of the public may review and comment upon the proposed mural. No new Original Art Mural shall be registered until the applicant certifies that he or she has completed the Neighborhood Involvement Requirement.”

This would seem to be a more bottom-up approach that would allow homeowners the freedom to pursue having a mural on their property than a ham-handed pronouncement from above by the city.

Supporters of the amended definition include Venice’s own SPARC, which is home to the UCLA/SPARC Digital Mural Lab that has developed a process for the digital reproduction and installation of murals.

In a July 19 guest editorial on KCET’s Departures website, SPARC co-founder Judy Baca wrote:

“Yes, fellow muralists, we do have a common enemy but it is not each other. It is corporations that claim the rights of individual personhood with resources so vast that people do not have to matter in a globalized world. The ban on murals goes into litigation because of the proliferation of billboards, super graphics and unchecked advertising. And there seems to be no end in sight for the use of every inch of space for advertising. This has created a visual glut in Los Angeles, and murals become almost invisible in such an environment, lost amongst the dominance of advertising image.”

SPARC is in the process of making a digital replica of “Calle de la Eternidad,” which was located in downtown L.A., on the sixty-something-year-old east facade of the 101-year-old Zobel Building on Broadway near Fourth St.

Under the current façade, on which the mural was painted in 1993, is the original façade, which has windows across the upper floors, and the owner wishes to restore the original façade as part of an over-all renovation.

The scan of the mural will be digitally restored by the original artist, Joanne Poethig, and then put on a canvas-like fabric made from recycled plastic and vinyl, and retouched again by hand, before being attached to the south side of the building once renovations are complete.

Thus, in this case, the replication process seems the only logical alternative to destroying this beautiful work. Obviously, there is a place for such a process in the L.A. art scene.

However, won’t the installation, being on the southern face of the building, be subjected to more intense degradation by sunlight, accelerating its fading and deterioration?

Recently, the last of a series of these “mural replicas” also referred to as “banners” of the works of six muralists was installed along the 101 Freeway between Alameda and Broadway as part of a seven-year study by Caltrans on a cost-effective way to maintain public art.

Caltrans main concerns are worker safety and cost of maintenance, and this method, which is purported to be more vandal- and graffiti-resistant, while not a “mural” in the strictest sense, is not without merit with regards to restoring art to public spaces and inspiring an aesthetic awareness in the community.

But people on both sides of the digital image divide have issues with the project on aesthetic and quality grounds.

Unable to decide on the ordinance’s final language, the Planning Commission has postponed the matter until Sept.13. But, the furor over what is a mural, and the possible economic and social implications for the artists and the citizens of L.A., will remain at the forefront of artistic politics in Venice and elsewhere in the city.

Mural Ordinance – From the viewpoints of a prestigious muralist and a noted art historian

By Anna Siqueiros and Lisbeth Espinosa

In 2011, the City of Los Angeles Department of Cultural Affairs announced that less than 1200 murals existed in the entire city, and L.A. is no longer the ‘mural capital’ of the country.

In an effort to revive its mural culture, the City of Los Angeles Department of Planning was tasked with coming up with a new mural ordinance to encourage new projects. Working with muralists from throughout the city a final mural draft ordinance was hammered out after a painstaking six month democratic process of discussion, drafting, editing and revising in meetings sometimes lasting three hours.

However, on July 12, 2012, the mural ordinance presented to the City of L.A. Planning Commissioners was not the ordinance the muralists had crafted.

Included in the final draft ordinance presented by City Planner Thomas Rothmann were conditions and limitations that were nowhere in the measure as previously drafted. These included:

· Murals can only be located on residential buildings of five or more units.

· Murals need to remain intact for a minimum of two years.

· Murals cannot exceed the height of the structure or 100 feet.

· Muralists pay an administrative permit fee of $60, $80 or $100 depending on the cost of materials.

· Revision of the L. A. Municipal Code definition of Original Art Mural to include “digitally-printed images” – a process of reproducing a mural on vinyl and installing it over the original.

Artists from all over L. A. attended the Planning Commission hearing to voice their concerns over an ordinance that will profoundly affect their livelihoods as muralists.

During public comment, more than 30 muralists plus professional individuals like David Diaz, PhD, an expert in urban planning and policy at CSULA, and organizations such as United Painters and Public Artists a collective of muralists and graffiti writers, the Mural Conservancy of Los Angeles and the Venice Arts Council voiced their opposition to the mural ordinance.

Despite three votes on the motion to pass the ordinance on to the city council, the Planning Commissioners were unable to agree on the ordinance as presented. Debate on the ordinance has been postponed until Sept. 13, however no public comment will be allowed at that hearing.

If a decision is not made on that day, the ordinance will be submitted “as-is” to the Planning and Land Use Management Committee.  If they pass the ordinance, it will be sent by the Los Angeles City Council for adoption.

To get involved in this matter, visit Mural Conservancy of L.A., http://www.muralconservancy.org, United Painters and Public Artists, www.unitedpainterspublicartists.com, or the Venice Arts Council, www.veniceartscouncil.org.

Anna E. Siqueiros is a prominent L.A. artist and muralist and the great niece of David Alfaro Siqueiros, legendary painter of the first mural in L.A., “America Tropical” on Olvera Street in 1932.

Lisbeth Espinosa, an art historian and lecturer has documented L.A. murals for the last ten years.

Letters

Carole Lee Walsh

Sylvia Aroth

Paul Tanck

Dear Beachhead,

I was at the Brick House Sunday and having to wait, picked up your newspaper. Needless to say, it’s a great local paper. I was shocked to hear that Solomon was the victim of police brutality.

He is a main attraction on the Boardwalk. My out of town friends are dazzled by his presence. I do recall two police officers were literally scratching their heads standing about 30 feet from Solomon some years back when he was new to the scene.  But he is exactly why we love the Boardwalk.  It brings all the colorful people out:  Solomon, the marijuana pipe guy,  Harry Perry, et al.

I could not help but wonder if Solomon were a cute chick in a bikini if there would have been any fuss. It would be interesting to explore this idea to see how the officials respond. Would this come under free speech? Rights to religious freedom?

Does Solomon sell anything?  Does he have to pay for a space on the VBW?  How do you license a person expressing themselves? Is that not what he is doing?

Sincerely.

Carole Lee Walsh

Dear Carole,

Thanks for reading the Beachhead and thanks for your words of encouragement. Solomon does not sell anything and he does not have to pay for a space, but the police do harass him for performing out of designated spaces. During the Lottery system of allocating spaces each performer had to pay for a yearly permit. Solomon was one of the few performers who never purchased such a permit and received tickets as a

result. The Lottery system was deemed unconstitutional since, but the police harassment continues.

The Beachhead

                                                          

Dear Beachhead,

I discovered Venice in the late 60’s, while attending UCLA, and fell in love. I loved its diversity, culturally, ethnically and socio-economically. The only beach community like it.

But it’s been changing, gentrifying and, recently, at an alarmingly rapid pace.

The targeting of the unhoused is symptomatic of this change. We should abide by the Jones Settlement and provide for certain needs of the unhoused, such as bathroom facilities and a safe place to store their belongings. That would be the Venice I know and love.

Venice has been a Bohemian community for most of the past century. Let’s keep it that way. And if you don’t like that aspect of Venice, move, but don’t try to change my Venice.

Sincerely.

Sylvia Aroth

                                                                      

Dear Beachhead,

Recently I heard a radio DJ discussing the Doors song “Soul Kitchen” and how it had been inspired by a Venice restaurant known as Olivia’s. I heard of this old Venice hang-out in passing, and immediately became inquisitive as to how this possibly misinformed DJ guy would describe her restaurant as being in Venice. Based on legend alone, I guessed Morrison wrote the song about his favorite hangout.

After some web-searching, I found Olivia’s was most likely located at the corner of Main St. and Ocean Park Av., definitely old-time Ocean Park. Definitely NOT Venice! But why, I wondered, is this misleading truth still being put out onto the masses? And why hasn’t this Rock‘n’Roll crime been rectified?

Olivia’s was not in Venice… OK?!! And this is why: Olivia’s, 2615 Main St., was a popular soul food restaurant whose patrons were mostly UCLA students. Jim loved Olivia’s, which was the inspiration for the song “Let me sleep all night in your Soul Kitchen.” It is currently the location of the surf and skate shop ZJ Boarding House.

In his book “Riders on the Storm,” John Densmore wrote about Olivia’s restaurant: “Olivia’s. A small soul food restaurant at the corner of Ocean Park and Main. A roadside diner that belonged in Biloxi, Mississippi. The place was packed, as usual. The restaurant that Jim later memorialized as the ‘Soul Kitchen’ was full of UCLA film students. It looked like an Amtrak dining car got stuck at the beach.”

Anyhow, it seems that Olivia’s was really more of a lost, dreamland kinda place, in restaurant eternity, on Main and Ocean Park. Definitely not Venice!

Paul Tanck

Dear Paul,

Thanks for the clarification. The Beachhead’s ad from the September 1969 issue shows that you are almost right. Olivia’s Place was located at 2618 Main St., Ocean Park.

Many thanks,

The Beachhead

The Fight to Save Our Post Office Continues

By Greta Cobar

Escrow is ready to close on our historical post office building in disregard to the United States Post Offices’s failure to protect the building from being modified or torn down by its new owner.

Historical protection is just one of several procedures that the USPS failed to follow when disposing of our post office and hundreds of others nationwide.

The battle is not over. As a matter of fact, the Coalition to Save the Venice Post Office is getting ready to file an injunction to stop the sale before escrow with Joel Silver closes.

Without a beneficiary in charge of enforcing a covenant, any such covenant would provide no historical preservation or protection. The USPS’s initial covenant appointed the California State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) as beneficiary of the Venice post office.

“The SHPO is not authorized by California state law to accept covenants or easements,” stated Reid Nelson, of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP), in a letter to Dallan Wordekemper, Federal Preservation Officer of the USPS.

Although the City of L.A. has never acted as a covenant enforcer, Ken Bernstein, Principal City Planner and Manager for the Office of Historic Resources, writes: “City staff have reviewed the draft preservation covenant originally prepared for the SHPO, and have inserted the City in place of the SHPO” in a July 20 letter to Wordekemper.

The sale of our post office cannot be completed without Section 106 compliance, which involves a covenant ensuring historical protection and a beneficiary responsible for enforcing that covenant, according to Caroline Hall, of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, in a letter addressed to Wordekemper.

As Jim Smith pointed out in a letter to Bernstein on behalf of the Coalition, the “historic preservation covenant has been found severely deficient by individuals, preservation groups and at least one State Preservation Office, so far.”

Besides being unenforceable because of its lack of a beneficiary, it does not provide for public access to the lobby and the 1941 Story of Venice mural by noted artist Edward Biberman. As Mark Ryavek, of the Coalition pointed out, “the covenant is still hopelessly deficient and does not include the right of any public access, so preserving the foyer and mural is for naught from the public’s perspective.”

“The Postal Service will initiate the Section 106 consultation process when it develops plans for the reuse or disposal of the property, and the City of Venice will be a consulting party. The Postal Service will include measures to ensure the mural will remain available for public viewing in any plan for reuse or disposal of the Post Office property,” wrote David Williams, Vice President of Network Operations with the USPS, in the Final Decision to sell our post office. The current covenant, however, does not allow public access to the mural.

Another procedural failure on the part of the USPS involves its negligence in providing adequate community notification and input consideration during the process. For example, the USPS held a public meeting at Hama Sushi on a Monday, at 1 pm, which was attended by five residents. If the meeting would have been scheduled outside of work hours and publicly announced, attendance would have been higher.

The other two public meetings claimed to have been held by the USPS were actually Venice Neighborhood Council meetings attended by USPS representatives. The hundreds of residents attending those meetings were unanimously and loudly against the closure of our post office.

Which brings up another procedural failure on the part of the USPS: input consideration. Shouldn’t the public have a say when it comes to a public institution?

Yet another procedural failure in a row: not disclosing plans to reduce retail service at the new location, specifically the elimination of Saturday window services. Originally the USPS had planned for only two service windows at the new facility, and increased the number to four only after the public and Congressperson Janice Hahn pointed out the long waiting lines, which were in clear violation of the   USPS’s own mission statement.

For a post office to be sold, the USPS has to determine and declare the building as “excess property,” which requires paperwork specific to each property. The USPS has not provided such paperwork for Venice, and they might just not have it. There is no proof that the building was ever established as excess property.

It is also important to note that Works Project Administration (WPA) buildings, such as our post office, were created with the intent of merging universal access to mail, art and architecture. By changing the purpose of the building and denying the public access to the foyer and mural, the USPS is violating the intent of the WPA.

Interestingly enough, the WPA was a depression-era effort on the part of the government to decrease unemployment while creating public buildings and services. It goes to show how much our government has changed since, as we are selling these WPA buildings and eliminating a service provided for in the constitution in favor of private businesses that will cost more and deliver to less. Once again the big corporations win while negatively affecting mostly the rural, elderly, poor and disabled members of our society. What a perfect example of the one percent further increasing its share of the wealth, while the rest of us are put at a further disadvantage.

Venice is joining hands with efforts throughout the country, from Berkeley to Northfield, from La Jolla to Santa Monica, to stop the USPS’s efforts to cash in on our historical post offices. If you would like to become involved with the Coalition’s efforts to save our post office, please contact the Beachhead. We currently have the grounds to file an injunction to stop the sale.

Medical Marijuana Dispensaries’ Future Up in Smoke

By Anne Alvarez and Greta Cobar

On July 24, L.A. City council members voted unanimously to ban medical marijuana dispensaries citywide. The ordinance did not initially receive a unanimous vote, as Councilperson Paul Koretz (who backed an opposing plan, which would have allowed up to 182 dispensaries that existed prior to 2007) voted against it. However, he changed his vote after council members agreed to advance his proposed plan.

The ban is set to take effect 30 days after Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa signs the bill into law.

The council also voted to instruct city staff to draw up a separate ordinance that would allow 182 dispensaries to remain open. Officials said that proposal, which would grant immunity to shops that existed before the 2007 moratorium on new dispensaries, could be back to the council for consideration in three months.

This new ordinance is similar to one passed two years ago, which was supposed to shutter hundreds of pot dispensaries while capping the number in operation at 70. That ordinance was never enforced, and instead of hundreds of collectives being shut down, in actuality, more opened.

All previous similar ordinances were not enforced, and if history is any indication, this one will be no different. Chances are medical marijuana dispensaries will continue to flourish unabated this time as well. The cost of shutting down successful businesses would not profit anyone, including our police force. Patients would suffer the most, as they would have to travel longer distances to the nearest shop, and fewer shops would most likely result in higher prices.

Bill Rosendahl, 11th District councilperson, who has been an outspoken supporter of medical cannabis, recently admitted to being a medical marijuana patient. He was unable to cast a vote on the July 24 ordinance due to a back injury. However, he posted this statement on his Facebook page: ”I support the use of medical marijuana and oppose a total ban on dispensaries in the city. I also believe we need smart regulation to prevent a proliferation throughout the city and to keep dispensaries away from schools and other sensitive uses. I would have voted against the ban, and supported the proposal which will grandfather in some of the 182 of the first generation of dispensaries.”

This decision by our elected city officials has many citizens outraged, including those in attendance, who shouted: “You don’t care about the people!” It is a slap in the face to the thousands of patients that are dependent on medical marijuana for the relief of chronic pain, insomnia, anxiety, depression, migraines, glaucoma, nausea, asthma, hepatitis, fibromyalgia, multiple-sclerosis and anorexia, to name a few. Not to mention the financial strain this will put on thousands of people who are currently employed at the estimated 800 dispensaries city-wide. Thousands of jobs would be lost in the middle of the great recession while the economy is crumbling, with layoffs and foreclosures on the rise. Venice itself is home to over 20 dispensaries, each employing an average of ten people. More than half of those stores are slated to close under the new ordinance.

Council members cited an inability to control the hundreds of medical pot shops that have spread across Los Angeles over the past few years. Nor have they considered that pot is California’s biggest cash crop, responsible for $14 billion a year in sales, dwarfing the state’s second largest agricultural commodity, dairy, which brings in $7.3 billion a year, according to USDA statistics. Clearly there would be no reason for our city to be in financial distress if marijuana collectives where regulated properly. The city council should focus on is a better regulatory system, which could be a huge source of revenue.

If you would like to voice your opinion against the medical marijuana ban, contact the following elected officials: Bill Rosendahl at 310-575-8461 or councilman.rosendahl@lacity.org; Paul Koretz at 310-289-0353; Jerry Brown at 916-445-2841

VNC Meeting: A Study in Patience and Stamina

By Roger Linnett

Reduced to what amounted to whining, Venice Stakeholders Association President Marc Ryavec continued his rancorous crusade against the unhoused element of Venice at the regular monthly VNC meeting with a motion titled Right of Way Enforcement, based on several L.A. Municipal Codes, the aim of which was to force the unfortunate of our community out of sight, and so out of mind.

Despite the fact that two of the codes cited, LAMC 41.18(d) which states that “No person shall lie, sit or sleep in or upon any street or sidewalk or other public way,” which, because of the Jones v. City of Los Angeles settlement, currently bars the LAPD from enforcing said code between 9 pm and 6 am, and  LAMC 56.11 which states “No person shall leave or permit to remain any merchandise, baggage or any article of personal property upon any parkway or sidewalk,” which, because of the Lavan v. City of Los Angeles settlement, mandates that any personal property seized during an arrest must be secured for 90 days by the LAPD.

In fact, last month’s VNC meeting featured L.A. City Attorney Carmen Trutanich, who made specific reference to these two codes and the city’s intention of not incurring further lawsuits.

The other three statutes, LAMC 62.61(b), LAMC 63.44(d) and LAMC 41.18(a), deal with obstructing any right of way except by permit, camping only at designated sites and obstructing or molesting pedestrians.

Citing these Hammurabic fundamentals of civilization, the motion asked “the VNC to call upon the LAPD to consistently enforce the cited laws, while offering referrals to those who may need services or housing.” What was insidiously omitted from that last part was – while handing out tickets.

Councilmember Ira Koslow presented a “substitute motion” that cleaned up the language, omitting some disparaging comments.

Councilmember Ivonne Guzman made a motion to “indefinitely table” the motion, which the council defeated, wanting to settle the matter then and there, and proceeded to public comment and council consideration.

Steve Clare of the Venice Community Housing Corporation said this motion would “make Venice the meanest neighborhood in the meanest city in the country” [with regard to how homeless persons are treated.]

Councilmember Kelley Willis reminded the council that “regardless of housing or not, we are all stakeholders.” And VNC President Linda Lucks declared this would amount to “micromanaging the police.”

In an earlier statement LAPD Pacific Division Capt. John Peters had pointed out that the LAPD was already mandated to “constitutionally enforce” all laws, but also commented that officers had to use discretion in enforcing certain laws.

They then voted on the substitute motion, which was soundly trounced. Then, because of the Rules of Order, they had to vote on the original motion, which suffered an even more ignominious end with a vote of 15 nay, 0 yea and 4 abstentions.

Community Improvement Projects Approved at July VNC Meeting

The VNC yearly sets aside part of its budget from the City of L.A. for use by local groups. The annual Community Improvement Projects for 2012 were presented by the Neighborhood Committee to the full VNC Board, which approved funding for the following projects:

Venice Boys & Girls Club “Sew What” Sewing Club $1,000
826LA Venice Wave Newspaper $1,000
Safe Place For Youth Venice Volunteer Fair $2,000
Westside Global Awareness Magnet Beautification $1,000
Marina Peninsula Neighborhood Ass’n. Doggie Bag Dispensers $2,000
Venice Vintage Motorcycle Club Spring Job Fair $1,000
Walgrove Elementary School Schoolyard Murals $1,000
Brady Walker Venice Surf & Skate Festival $2,000
Venice MoZaic Youth Poetry & Spoken Word $1,075
Venice Community Housing Corp. Centennial Park Improvement $2,000

Venice is a Poem

By Mary Getlein

I walked on the beach, the sun was shining brightly, sweet winds blew over our heads. We looked up: sea gulls riding wind currents over our heads! I was so astonished! It was so beautiful!

I was so glad I finally got to California. My boyfriend came back from a summer in Santa Cruz ranting about how he had to go back and did I want to go, too? Did I want to go? Leave Richmond, Virginia, where at 3:00 am it was 101 degrees? HELL, YES!

We ended up in Venice in October, 1971. October days were so warm and beautiful. The ocean was a deep blue and the sunsets were magnificent. The place was swarming with hippies. Everywhere you looked, you saw hippies. People smoked dope openly in front of the cops. I walked around with my mouth hanging open – there was so much to see! It was like an every day carnival. There were belly dancers, and snake people that would dance with huge pythons. There was an incredible mix of talented artists and musicians. People here were so friendly and FUNNY – probably because the majority of the population was HIGH at any given time.

In 1971 people had not heard of “political correctness” yet, so things could get ugly very fast. Police were called pigs openly, and a lot of people challenged the police on a daily basis.

My second apartment in Venice was at 17 Ozone Avenue, and there was a head shop right at the end of Ozone. It was there that I picked up my first copy of The Beachhead. It was very radical and printed all sorts of rants and raves about the political mess we were in at the time.

Its politics reflected the view of the Venice community. We wanted to save this oasis of beauty and warmth for ourselves. Why not? Not many people wanted to live in Venice then, too “dangerous”. It was perfect for hippies. Low, low rent and barters and exchanges made it possible to live a happy life and not spend too  much time working. A giant hippie playground, with cute little restaurants and eating places to hang out in. Another thing we had then was benches. Lots and lots of benches along Ocean Front Walk. Also, the old pagodas were built of wood, so you could sleep on them. The city purposely replaced the old, homey pagodas, with new ones built with concrete benches to sit on, which are not very comfortable.

On the Ozone side of the Boardwalk, there lived a lot of Jewish survivors of concentration camps from World War II. They were fun to hang out with and hear stories of their lives.

There was Harold’s Bakery, where you could get a loaf of bread for 25 cents. Ruthie, who worked at Harold’s Bakery, was so sweet and kind to all of us crazy hippies. You could get a potato knish and it would fill you up all day.

We all loved The Beachhead and looked forward to the new issue coming out. I liked the fact that they published so many poems and promoted so many radical views. The idea of Venice Cityhood was really strong then. If you go back and read the old issues, you see the problems and you see the solutions.

The ‘70s was the emergence of free clinics, free legal services, domestic violence shelters, Women’s rights, Chicano rights, the Black Panthers, The Grey Panthers, Vietnam Vets Against The War – it was a time of self-discovery, and a back to nature movement. The Environmental Movement was approached on a crisis level – Save the planet right now!

The rents in Venice were  incredibly cheap, so for $100 a month you could live in a tiny apartment right on the Boardwalk, where you could listen to the ocean day and night. There is nothing like seeing a harvest full moon hang in the sky at 3 o’clock in the morning.  This place splashes us with beauty every time we turn around.

It was very beautiful in the ‘70s, but there was also a lot of drug abuse, battered women, and lost or forgotten people ending up on the streets. There was a free box on Brooks Avenue, and you could go there and leave clothes, or food, or even joints, and pick up what you needed.

There was a lot of violence that happened on the Boardwalk. A lot of street gangs fought over drug territories, just as they do now. I always say, “It’s still Venice”. Just because all these yuppies have moved in here and jacked the rents up and turned Abbot Kinney into Melrose Ave, doesn’t mean the drug/gang problem has gone away. There are still victims of shootings in Oakwood and other parts of Venice. In the ‘70s, people would beat each other up, or a gang would beat up one guy, and the police were never there. And in the 1992-94 gang war in Venice, the police response was nil.

Now it’s the year 2012, and The Beachhead is still in front of the issues, taking them on, again and again. “Support Your Local Artists” used to be a slogan that was used a lot here. If you claim to love this community, then spend your money here. Put up, or shut up. Artists can’t live on dreams. They need to pay bills and eat, too. This place is crawling with artists, poets, musicians and lovely, tolerant people. It’s also becoming global – you can’t even eavesdrop on tourists anymore, because they are speaking in German, French, Japanese, etc. Venetians who have lived here for years are usually very tolerant with a highly developed sense of humor. You have to have a sense of humor when you live in a carnival.

Venice has always been a party place, a bohemian place, a runaway oasis, for far too long to change now. We will always be a place for people to run to, even if all you can do is sit at the edge of the world and stare at the water.

You move here and you become a sun worshiper and an ocean worshiper, and all the other things leave your mind. A slogan of The Beachhead is “This paper is a poem”. Well, this place can be a poem too.

Anonymous Talks to the Beachhead

By X

Thank you, to those citizens of the world who took part in the 99%, to expose the 1%. We, soon, with our brothers’ and sisters’ help, are going to expose the 0.5%, which have hundreds to thousands of millions of dollars. Anonymous is not a communist or an anti-government group, as was reported by those in the media.

Anonymous wishes to show the unjust when it comes to income and wealth. When someone has an annual income of $1 million, one can make wealth, as the system is set up by the 0.5% for this to work for them, and not you.

This can be seen in Venice and other places around our world. Greece was the first country to fail. Next will be Spain, then Portugal, then Ireland. With our online research and our informants, all the roads seem to lead back to the new 4th Reich. Anonymous has found out that it is a 1000 year Reich that still reigns by the 3rd generation.

The 0.2% who have thousands of millions of dollars will be exposed next. Then the 0.1% will expose themselves as having billions to trillions of dollars and access to military machines. We need to remind ourselves that Greece is the cradle of democracy, and Iraq is the cradle of civilization, the Garden of Eden.

We are signing off with the notion that they wish you to believe that democracy is capitalism. This is untrue. Thank you to the Beachhead from Anonymous.

We do not forgive. We do not forget. The Olympics 2012.

We are Anonymous.

Anonymous is an International online community, a leaderless group with no official membership. It is a way of working loosely coordinated, independently and Anonymously. More a concept than an organization, their primary areas of interest are internet privacy and freedom from censorship.

Anonymous actions have involved using hacker skills to attack corporate and government websites in the US and abroad. Anonymous has been involved in occupy Wall Street, and the Guy Fawkes masks Anonymous participants wear in public have become symbolic of the broader occupy movement.

Online actions in support of Julian Assange of Wikileaks have brought about increased scrutiny by law enforcement agencies around the world. It was with this in mind that when the Beachhead reporter offered to meet with an Anonymous participant, he was required to follow various security protocols.

The Lit Show is a Hit – With Suzy Williams

By CJ Gronner

Oh, Suzy Williams. How are you so so cool? Well, for starters. she and her husband, Gerry Fialka, put on The Lit Show every year at Beyond Baroque, where you hear the words of famous authors put to jazzy compositions by Suzy and Brad Kay. Where you wind up being not only thoroughly entertained, but smarter.

In the 7th or 8th Annual (no one was really sure which) Lit Show, Suzy and Brad were joined by Oliver Steinberg on stand up bass, Carol Chaikin on everything (well, flute, clarinet and two different saxes), Barry Zweig on guitar, and Don Allen on drums. And the entire crowd of loyal Venice fans on laughter, clapping and the opening chorus of “The Liiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiit Show!!!!” Everyone was down from the opening notes, that Suzy delivered in full Marilyn Monroe (who was also featured on the evening’s program cover, reading Ulysses) regalia, right down to the beauty mark. That’s the thing about Suzy, she really DELIVERS every single word, making her especially great at adapting such glorious words from authors that you may not have even known ever wrote song lyrics.

Like Kurt Vonnegut, Rudyard Kipling, and Ben Hecht (very upbeat number from the dude who wrote Scarface, etal!). Even Ray Bradbury, who lived exactly right across the street here in Venice for a spell, and whose song, “Bedtime Exercise” found Suzy portraying a sexy robot. A “Venusian Venetian.”  To introduce Nabokov’s ditty from Lolita, Suzy said, “Let’s blow it all to Hell!” Which happened, particularly due to Carol Chaikin’s sax blowing that was so feeling it that it reminded me of Lisa Simpson going off.

“The Great Secret”, inspired by words from Hafiz, Suzy’s “Spiritual Master”, turned out to be that There really is no such thing as sin … so we’re off the hook, boys and girls! Suzy is the best. She reminds me a little of Bette Midler in her delivery, and her not giving a damn what anyone thinks, straight up doing her own thing, and in the vaudeville style way she interacts with the crowd. Suzy is a true mold breaker, though, and fully deserving of her title, The Songbird of Venice.

After a brief intermission, Suzy returned to the stage as a sultry brunette, salting the set with funny little asides like, “Edna liked to be called ‘Vincent’” about Edna St. Vincent Millay. For Vonnegut, Suzy donned a turban and hoop earrings and shook a maraca for the summery delight of “Bokomon’s Calypso” from Cat’s Cradle. All the Venice faces were smiling along, deeply in love with the divine Ms. W.  Nice, Nice, Very Nice!

The “G Rated Bessie Smith of Venice”, introduced Brad Kay of Suzy when she sang “Little Shirley Beans”. This one was inspired by Salinger’s Catcher In The Rye – which she suggested everyone re-read when they’re older. I’m going to.

The very bohemianly awesome evening ended with the crowd singing along “LOOOOOOOOOVE!” with Suzy to “A Song of Love” by Lewis Carroll (from Sylvie and Bruno). I loved every bit of it, and urge anyone who’s never seen Suzy to get there and get charmed by our dear local treasure songbird. Especially because she shouts great things like, “Don’t forget! Marilyn Monroe is always on the merry go round reading Ulysses!” to end her show.

The Liiiiiiiiiiiiit Show was about the most sweet/street, smart/tart time I’ve had in a while, and truly so original. Just like Suzy.