The Prospects for Venice Cityhood

By Jim Smith

Like the surf that keeps rolling up on Venice’s shore, the idea of restoring our cityhood just won’t go away.

In 2012, I am continually approached by Venetians who ask “What’s going on with cityhood?” or “What do we have to do to get free of L.A.?”

It’s not a new issue. In 1925, there were immediate claims of foul when the supporters of annexation by Los Angeles finally won an election. Previous votes to annex to Los Angeles or Santa Monica had both failed. In 1940, there was a bill in the California State Senate to restore Venice cityhood. During the 1960s and ‘70s, it became a movement, called Free Venice.

This paper, the Free Venice Beachhead, has always been a part of the demand for restoration. In the 1990s, a new committee was formed that actively campaigned for cityhood. Through the “00s,” community forums took place under the auspices of the University of Venice and well-reasoned articles appeared in the Beachhead. In the end, we didn’t get any closer to getting our city back.

What’s different today? 

A couple of things. More and more Venetians are becoming disgruntled with the city of Los Angeles. Previously, the megalopolis was able to quietly siphon off much more money from Venice than it returned. Lately, its financial problems have made L.A. look for any way to make a buck in Venice. This includes raising the price of parking and the tickets that everyone eventually gets on “street cleaning” day, whether there is any actual street cleaning or not, schemes such as the “Big Wheel” and the “Zip Line,” which include revocable “promises” of sharing revenue with Venice.

Waiting in the wings are more metered parking, more amusement rides, more fees for city services such as repairing broken sidewalks, allowing advertisements everywhere including Ocean Front Walk, renewed inspections by code enforcers and a wholesale reassessment of Venice’s taxable property values.

The Los Angeles City Council, June 5, declared a fiscal emergency. This enables the Mayor to make massive layoffs (just what we need, more people out of work) and cuts in services. There is a projected deficit of $199 million for fiscal year 2013-14 and $315 million for the following year. Unless it squeezes the life out of Venice and other “holdings,” it is on the path to bankruptcy.

At the same time, Venice is becoming wealthier. Property values are on the rise again, which could make a great tax base for the city of Venice. As an independent city, Venice would be larger than half of the 88 current cities in Los Angeles County.

Some critics have said that Venice would not be viable without a shopping center to tax. Anyone who has been past the intersection of Rose and Lincoln lately knows that Venice now has a shopping center, even if it is one hugely profitable Whole Foods Market. It is only a matter of time before a new proposal to redevelop Lincoln Center, at California and Lincoln, is floated again. As Lincoln Place becomes repopulated, it makes sense to provide stores that cater to the locals, and are a source of revenue for Venice.

For anyone seriously interested in regaining cityhood, it might be useful to look at how other cities of Venice’s size gain their revenue and what they spend it on. A nearby city of approximately Venice’s size is Culver City. More than 50 percent of Culver City’s revenue comes from three sources:  Sales Tax, Utility Taxes and Business Licenses. The budgets of other cities in L.A. County can be easily accessed with an internet search.

In Venice, we would likely gain much of our income from our largest industry, tourism. This would include sales tax, hotel taxes, parking revenue, taxi fees and other fees to derive at least some income on the tens of thousands who descend on Venice each day.

Uniting for a City of Venice

In recent years, Venice has been a war zone of neighbors battling each other over parking, poverty and development. Some Venetians believe that such divisions make it impossible for the community to come together in favor of city hood.

However, the Coalition to Save the Venice Post Office has brought together groups and people who usually don’t get along. It includes this newspaper, the Venice Neighborhood Council, the Venice Stakeholders Association, Venice Peace and Freedom, SPARC, Venice Arts Council, Venice Chamber of Commerce, various poets, writers, artists, and business people. Personal attacks and extraneous issues are frowned upon by most of the participants. As a result, Venice has been able to speak with one voice and to wage a credible fight to save one of our most historic buildings.

The fight to save the Post Office has also pointed out our weakness in not having a city government. In Hermosa Beach, when the local Post Office was targeted for closure, the city responded with electronic signs on busy streets urging residents to email their Congressmember. In a short time, Rep. Jane Harman received 5,000 emails from angry Hermosa Beach residents. She then demanded that the Postal Service not close the HB post office. Contrast that with the lack of response from our two Senators and Rep. Henry Waxman. Post offfices are being abandoned by the USPS in Santa Monica and La Jolla. But in both communities the city government is considering buying the post offices and turning them into city buildings, thereby keeping them as public spaces.

Can we come together for cityhood before the remaining historic buildings and houses and public services are decimated?

Some Venetians have told the Beachhead that they are wary of cityhood because the other side (homeless haters or sixties hippies, take your pick) would assume power.

So it comes down to whether you’d rather be ruled by the crooks in L.A. City Hall or “those people” down the block. It also comes down to a question of democracy. Can you have anything resembling democracy in a jurisdiction of more than four million people? Democracy is more than having a secret ballot election periodically. It is at heart, a question of how much control, power, influence the average person has in the social maelstrom swirling about around him or her. Most of us who have served on the neighborhood council know that it is not a body with real power. At best, it can advise city officials on local policy. At worse, it is a placebo offered to a withering community that needs a dose of real power.

Venice is a potential city of 40,000 people. It can be walked, biked or skated from one end to the other. Anyone elected to a Venice City Council would have to live in this small area. Does anyone know where the 14 men and one woman who are the Los Angeles City Council live? Does anyone know where the department head, who has great decision-making power, lives? Does anyone even know the names of the bankers, corporate heads and big developers who are the real rulers of Los Angeles?

In Venice, civic-minded people would know their elected officials. They would also see these people at the market, the hardware store, or out riding their bikes. The potential for real democracy in a city of 40,000 would be much greater than it would be in an entity of millions.

Venice have suffered, you will ultimately find an instigator from the L.A. city government. This was true of the abolition of the progressive Grass Roots Venice Neighborhood Council in 2006, the Overnight Parking Districts, the beach curfew, and the Big Wheel, among others. This does not mean that there weren’t locals who were more than happy to “front” the fight. However, if Venice was its own city, they wouldn’t be able to rely on these powerful backers. Accommodation, not confrontation, would become the political game in small town Venice.

How can we assemble a wide-ranging committee to plan the initial steps for regaining cityhood. As a temporary measure, I’d like to suggest a discussion begin on http://yhoo.it/MWLGBN. This is neutral ground, although I am the moderator. The only rule is that people use their real names. Regaining cityhood is serious business, not an idle discussion. Once we get together on VeniceCA, we can get volunteers to put up a website, Facebook page, Twitter, etc. So let’s get started!

Would people you don’t agree with be elected to office? Yes. Would people you do agree with be elected to office? Yes. This is how democracy works. In a town or a society where everyone thinks the same, you wouldn’t need democracy. But Venice hasn’t been that homogeneous since the Sixties (and probably wasn’t even then).

So yes, we would have disagreements, hard fought elections, and a few disagreeable people. But we would likely have less disputes than we do at present. If you search carefully hrough the major controversies that we in Venice have suffered, you will ultimately find an instigator from the L.A. city government. This was true of the abolition of the progressive Grass Roots Venice Neighborhood Council in 2006, the Overnight Parking Districts, the beach curfew, and the Big Wheel, among others. This does not mean that there weren’t locals who were more than happy to “front” the fight. However, if Venice was its own city, they wouldn’t be able to rely on these powerful backers. Accommodation, not confrontation, would become the political game in small town Venice.

How can we assemble a wide-ranging committee to plan the initial steps for regaining cityhood? As a temporary measure, I’d like to suggest a discussion begin on http://groups.yahoo.com/group/veniceCA. This is neutral ground, although I am the moderator. The only rule is that people use their real names. Regaining cityhood is serious business, not an idle discussion. Once we get together on VeniceCA, we can get volunteers to put up a website, Facebook page, Twitter, etc. So let’s get started!

Venice Homeless People File Claim Against L.A. City

People whose personal property was seized without notice and destroyed on March 7 on  3rd Avenue filed claims for damages against the city on March 28, said Attorney Carol Sobel.

The claims seek a minimum of $4,000 for each person whose property was taken.

In April 2011, a federal court issued an emergency order, which continues in effect, barring the city from seizing and destroying the property of homeless individuals on Skid Row.

Where’s the Transparency? – L.A. Confidential

By Jim Smith

When City Controller Candidate Cary Brazeman expressed shock that the city of Los Angeles was corrupt, I was reminded of the scene in the film, Casablanca, when Inspector Renault discovers gambling at Rick’s as he is handed his winnings. Brazeman was irritated about the city’s Ethics Commission changing the election rules in mid-campaign. In fact, “ethics” is about as foreign to city government as “planning” is to the Dept. of Planning.

When I asked Brazeman if he didn’t know L.A. was corrupt, he responded: “Well, I liked to think it couldn’t get any dirtier … but was proven wrong!” His reaction is not uncommon. Many of us in Venice have had those moments when we thought it couldn’t get any dirtier, only to be confronted with more corruption.

Corruption takes many forms in the city of the angels. It can be the old-fashion kind when money is transferred from a businessman to a city official. This is called a campaign contribution in Los Angeles, where most of the city council is beholden to developers. Corruption also can be rigged elections as in the Venice annexation election of 1925. Corruption caused the dismantling the Red Cars, the most extensive mass transit system in the country at the behest of the oil and auto companies. Corruption can also take the form of changing the rules in mid-stream, as Brazeman points out. Or, in suddenly deciding a city street is actually a park in order to brutalize homeless people. It’s no wonder that a popular film exposing city corruption in mid-century was called L.A. Confidential – the opposite of transparency.

I would argue that lack of transparency in government is an example of corruption. Transparency means openness, communications and accountability. Where is the transparency in Los Angeles? The city regime is about as transparent as the governments of Syria and North Korea.

Readers may wonder how the city of Los Angeles can be compared with these boogeymen of the evening news? Aren’t they corrupt dictatorships (the term is nearly redundant)? If you really think Los Angeles is a transparent democracy, you haven’t been paying attention. It has some of the trappings of democracy. You can attend city council meetings, where whatever you say will be ignored. You can attend neighborhood council meetings, which have all the power of a mock legislature in a middle school. The only difference is that a number of uniformed, armed men and women will probably not be lining the back wall at the middle school exercise.

Here are a few examples of the shocking lack of transparency as it affects Venice:

• Not once since he was elected has our Councilmember, Bill Rosendahl, issued an accounting of the Venice Surplus Property Fund. The Fund, which includes money from the sale of city owned property in Venice, is supposed to be used only in Venice. There has been no report on how much has been collected, how much has been spent, what projects it has been spent on, or any other particulars. Our previous councilmember, Cindy Miscikowski, who was imposed on Venice by the city council without an election, routinely consulted with the Grass Roots Venice Neighborhood Council on expenditures. In neither case, however, was a Venice community body trusted to make spending decisions.

•  The Big Wheel – that 200 foot tall Ferris Wheel – will be installed on the beach whether residents want it or not. Meetings between the Great City Attractions and the city, including the Councilmember’s office, the Recreation and Parks Dept. and the L.A. Visitors Bureau have been taking place without a word to those of us who will have to put up with more traffic, noise and pollution. If it had not been for the Beachhead breaking the story back in September, we probably wouldn’t have known about it until it was erected.

• The current City Attorney, Carmen “Nuch” Trutanich, a fine example of today’s political animal, has ruled that our busiest street, Ocean Front Walk, is, in fact, a park. Transparency? No. There has been no documentation given to surprised Venetians to back up this astonishing opinion. We await “Nuch’s” pronouncement on the existence of UFOs.

• Many streets in Venice now bear large signs that prohibit so-called oversized vehicles, including many that rarely saw an RV. Our Councilmember said that the signs would only be posted if two-thirds of the residents signed a petition in favor of having them. We’ll never know if such petitions exist since they are not open for inspection. Meanwhile, owners of RVs have traded them in for camper vans that are not “oversized.”

• Let’s follow the money that’s collected in Venice. Except we can’t. Do you know how much money the city extracts from Venice? Do you know how much money is spent here by the city? You won’t find answers to these questions from city officials. Even though, in the computer age it would be a relatively simple program that could give us the answer, if they wanted us to know. Of course, the last thing that will ever become is transparent.

This is not an indictment of Rosendahl or Trutanich or any of the other good people who are officials of Los Angeles. They are simply caught up in a corrupt institution. In fact, Los Angeles is just too big to be good. The opportunities for mischief are everywhere, and usually no one is watching. L.A. is also too big to succeed. The average resident or group of residents doesn’t have a chance of effecting change in this megalopolis. In the immortal words of County Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky, “The average person walking into City Hall is behind the eight ball before he ever gets to the first step.”

There are probably other cities that are ruled in a dictatorial fashion like L.A. But most are run by shared governance. Greater London is made up of scores of communities the size of Venice or Mar Vista that have local councils with real power. New York City, of course, is divided into five boroughs. It has a city council made up of 51 representatives, of which 18 are women. Los Angeles, on the other hand, has only 15 councilmembers, all men except one. New York City’s Council is also much more diverse but members do not receive the broad array of perks that are enjoyed by L.A. councilmembers. The interplay and bargaining between the Mayor, Borough Presidents and the large city council usually ensures that most groups and communities in NYC will have some representation, in contrast to the system of wealth and privilege that is practiced in Los Angeles.

It may sound like a broken record to say that the best solution for Venice would be to restore its cityhood. The much smaller size of Venice would force transparency in a way that we will never see in Los Angeles. In Venice, we would know where the city councilmembers live. We would see them in the grocery store, local restaurants or walking their dog. Meetings of vital importance to our community would no longer take place 20 miles away. Until Venetians start organizing to get out of the cesspool that is Los Angeles, we’ll just be some of the chumps they laugh about down at City Hall.