Keep Venice Free – No OPDs

By Greta Cobar

What else could possibly be done to change the welcoming spirit that has been the trademark of Venice for as long as it’s been on the map? How about bringing in Overnight Parking Districts (OPDs) that would make it illegal to park without a city-issued permit from 2am to 5am.

The California Coastal Commission has voted against OPDs in Venice on June 11, 2009 and June 10, 2010. Because neither the legislature nor the circumstances have changed since, it is expected that the same vote will yield the same results come June 2013. The judicial system of the US is heavily based on precedent rulings.

The Venice Neighborhood Council (VNC) was scheduled to hold a Town Hall meeting on OPDs on April 4, but that meeting was canceled and the next tentative date is May 6.

The reason the last meeting was cancelled and the date for the next one is still up in the air is because of disagreement between Linda Lucks, VNC President, and the Outreach Committee of the VNC, concerning who should be on the panel answering the public’s questions at the Town Hall.

“I’m not going to accept this,” Linda Lucks told the Beachhead about the current selection of panel members. They include Mark Ryavec of the Venice Stakeholders Association; Arturo Pena, Bill Rosendahl’s Chief of Staff; Jane Usher, former President of the Los Angeles City Planning Commission; and Tamara Martin, LADOT representative in charge of OPDs. All of these individuals are strong supporters of OPDs.

Town Hall meetings in Venice have historically been dominated by strong, outspoken opinions and enraged citizens on all sides of an issue. But the current effort of the VNC Outreach Committee is to have the next one be non-controversial and non-confrontational. According to this committee, the option of not having OPDs is not an option anymore.

Following the Coastal Commission’s 2010 ban on OPDs in Venice, Mark Ryavec’s Venice Stakeholders Association filed a lawsuit with the City of Los Angeles in which he argued that no Coastal Commission approval is needed in order to establish OPDs in Venice. City Attorney Carmen Trutanich, although at first against Ryavec’s lawsuit, changed his mind and joined forces with Ryavec against the Coastal Commission.

“An earlier, tentative settlement went to the Commission about a year and a half ago, but it was rejected by extremists on the Commission. In the intervening time the Commission membership has dramatically changed,” said Mark Ryavec,

Although the Venice Neighborhood Council (VNC) Board voted to approve OPDs in 2010, then Executive Director of the California Coastal Commission Peter Douglas joined forces with the 38 Venice residents who had filed an appeal against OPDs by filing his own appeal.

As a result, the Coastal Commission in 2010 voted against the establishment of OPDs in Venice.

Unfortunately Peter Douglas passed away on April 1, 2012, and the Coastal Commission went from what the World Bank had previously called “the strongest in the world” to what Steve Blank, a Commission member, predicted at the time of Peter Douglas’s death: “Once he’s gone, this commission will implode in the blink of an eye and all we’ll be talking about is the color of the concrete used to pave over what’s left of the coast.”

Currently a tentative settlement between Ryavec and the Coastal Commission has been reached, which would allow OPDs throughout Venice if the Coastal Commission were to approve them. In addition, two-thirds of the residents of each block would have to sign the petition asking for OPDs in order for them to go into effect.

Linda Lucks, although not the most outspoken liberal member of the VNC Board in the past, is now taking a strong stand against the Town Hall panel being represented only by Ryavec and those who agree with him and his settlement with the Coastal Commission.

As a result, Ryavec and his Stakeholders Association on March 25 filed a request for an investigation of an ethics violation by Linda Lucks. According to the request, Lucks should recuse herself from involvement with deliberations concerning OPDs because she has a conflict of interest due to her position as Capital Campaign Coordinator at the Venice Community Housing Corporation, which has opposed OPDs.

“The ethics charges are groundless, I don’t have a conflict of interest,” Lucks told the Beachhead.

Ryavec has previously been a big advocate of the Oversize Vehicle Ordinance (OVO), which prohibits RVs from parking on certain streets between 2am and 5am. “Vehicle dwellers have simply moved to vans, small trucks, and SUVs, which are not subject to the restriction on oversize vehicles,” Ryavec stated.

“The city of Los Angeles cannot justify this proposal as a way to address homelessness,” wrote Kim Thompson, a San Fernando valley resident and regular visitor to Venice, in his 2010 appeal to the Coastal Commission against OPDs.

Undoubtedly public access to the beach would be restricted under OPDs. According to the Coastal Act of 1976, “the public should have 24 hour access to the beaches.”

The midnight to 5am curfew that is now in place in parts of Venice under LAMC 63.44.B.14(b) is not only selectively enforced, but also illegal. A person sleeping on OFW during that time is likely to be harassed by the police either with a ticket or an arrest, while someone walking his or her dog is likely to be ignored by those same cops.

According to the Coastal Act of 1976, “the public should have 24 hour access to the beaches.” Under that same act, the city needs a permit for “any sort of curfews or restrictive ordinances that have such a negative impact on coastal access” said Charles Posner, Coastal Program Analyst with the California Coastal Commission in a phone conversation with the Beachhead in January 2012. The city does not have such a permit.

OPDs come at a price to all residents: they cost money. And the fee will be increased on a yearly basis. All of a sudden we will have to pay to park in front of our own houses and will end up paying outrageous parking tickets when we forget to put up the permit. Our friends will have to leave in the middle of the night or pay for the ticket more than they would for a hotel room if they just decide to crash over. Or, even more trouble can come about if they decide to leave after drinking because they’re worried about getting a ticket.

Although OPDs would be a hassle to the residents, the more important issue to consider is the public’s right of access. Do we want Venice to become the equivalent of a gated community?

Just because certain fractions of the VNC are trying to make it seem as if OPDs are inevitable, the settlement reached by Ryavec is tentative, just like the ones reached in 2009 and 2010. The Coastal Commission cannot afford to discredit itself by issuing a ruling opposing its previous decisions. Neither can it afford fighting and losing, based on the Coastal Act and on precedent rulings, the lawsuits that would inevitably follow.

The Coastal Commission is going to hold a hearing on the settlement on either June 12, 13 or 14 at the Long Beach City Council Chambers, at 333 W. Ocean Boulevard, in Long Beach. The public cannot attend this meeting, but letters opposing OPDs can be mailed in. Also, keep an eye out for the Town Hall meeting, currently scheduled for May 6, and come to voice your opinion during the Question and Answer section.

March Venice Neighborhood Council Meeting Overview

By Greta Cobar

The March Venice Neighborhood Council (VNC) Board meeting was of the shortest duration so far, according to Linda Lucks, VNC President.

One of the issues discussed during that meting were digital billboards. The permits given for their operation by the city of Los Angeles in 2006 were deemed illegal by the California Supreme Court in February.

As a result, Clear Channel Outdoor was ordered to remove all of its 100 digital billboards, many of which are on the West side, including Lincoln and Venice.

“Images on digital billboards change every 8 seconds, which means that light in near-by homes changes every night, every 8 seconds,” said Dennis Hathaway, Venice resident and President of the Coalition to Ban Billboard Blight, at the March VNC meeting.

Clear Channel, the owner of all digital billboards, “is trying to make a deal with the city to keep the billboards by intimidating the city into bankruptcy,” stated Hathaway at the March VNC meeting.

During his speech, Hathaway also mentioned a Swedish study that showed a decrease in driver safety as a consequence of digital billboards. Because of that study, the Swedish government ordered all digital billboards to come down.

A representative from Clear Channel, which owns all digital billboards in Los Angeles, also spoke during the March VNC meeting, stating that “none of the billboards are illegal -  the permitting process is flawed.” He went on to threaten that “there is no real mechanism for the city to enforce laws concerning billboards.”

While addressing the issue of illegal billboards in Venice at the June 19, 2012 VNC meeting, City Attorney Carmen Trutanich stated that he had already eliminated all illegal billboards. Obviously not, as the illegal digital billboard at Venice and Lincoln is still standing.

Another sight-blinding issue discussed during the March VNC meeting is the Zip-line, which is scheduled to start operations on the beach, between the Art Walls and the basketball courts, during mid-June this summer. It is slated to quit operations by October 1.

Operated by the Canadian company Green Heart, the Zip line will have two towers and up to four lines. It is unclear at this point how much money it will generate, but two-thirds of the funds are supposed to come back to Venice in a Recreations and Parks account, which is supposed to help with maintenance, such as restroom upkeep at the beach.

“I am opposed to  cleaning our bathrooms by destroying the beach,” said Ira Kuslow, VNC Board member.

If the money over-all generated in Venice were to stay in Venice, we would have nice, clean public bathrooms like the ones in Santa Monica. But because, unlike Santa Monica, we lack cityhood, the city of Los Angeles robs us of our funds.

Since when is beach bathroom cleanup contingent on blocking ocean view by a Canadian-operated Zip line? How many of their employees will be Venice residents? When they discontinue operations, where is the certainty that they will remove their two towers and the rest of their operation equipment?

“The hours of operation will not change,” said Linda Lucks, VNC President, when asked if the beach bathrooms will stay open longer.

The Zip line will be 720 feet long, but the towers will not have an underground foundation. When cautioned that strong winds might blow over the towers, Lucks stated that “they know what they’re doing.”

Last but not least, Steve Clare spoke of the success of the Winter Storage Program, which allowed house-less people taking the bus to the West Los Angeles shelter for the month of March to store their belongings in clean trash bins in a container situated by the Pacific Police Station. It was provided for by the Venice Community Housing Corporation (VCHC).

The purpose of the container, available only to those taking the bus to the shelter, was to increase the number of people going to the shelter. However, according to those already going, the shelter was full to capacity.

Steve Clare, VCHC President, stated at the March VNC meeting that 36 people took advantage of the container, which he considered to be a “great success” considering that it was only a pilot program that people did not know about. He did not know at that time if the storage program increased the number of persons going to the shelter.

During its one month of operation I visited it often and spoke at length with the volunteers that attended it. I really thought that we need affordable housing for all, and that the storage bin available for just one month, with hours of operation just between 3pm and 5pm, and available to only those taking the bus to the shelter, was too much of a short-coming.

Yet one day I literally stood there with tears in my eyes as a family, including grandmothers, tried to stuff their belongings in the one bin provided. The volunteer person in charge told them that their bin would be OK even if the lid was not closed all the way; after all, it was the storage container’s last day of operation. The family was so very happy and thankful. I wondered what would happen to them the next day, when the shelter and the storage container would be closed. The West Los Angeles shelter is open only during the winter months, and it closed March 1.

The VNC is considered to be one of the most outspoken neighborhood councils in the city, with one of the highest public participation around. Yet over the last year I have witnessed attendance and public involvement decreasing. It’s your Venice, get involved! VNC Board meetings take place on the third Tuesday of the month – hope to see you there April 16, 7pm, Westminster Elementary School Auditorium.

For more information, see www.venicenc.org

VNC Election Results

A record number of over 1600 voters cast their ballots at the October 28 Venice Neighborhood Council Elections. These are the winners:

President: Linda Lucks

Vice-President: Marc Saltzberg

Treasurer: Hugh Harrison

Secretary: Kristopher Valentine

Chair of Land Use and Planning Committee: Jake Kaufman

Communications Officer: Helen Stotler

Outreach Officer: Matt Kline

Factual Basis Community Officer: J. Lloyd Jacobs

At-large Community Officers:

Thomas Elliott

Ira Kuslow

Marisa Solomon

Sylvia Aroth

Abigail Myers

Max Sloan

Sevan Gerard

Eduardo Manilla

Oren Katzeff

Tommy Walker

Cynthia Rogers

Erin Sullivan-Ward

Scot Kramarich

Joel Silver Announces His Immortality at VNC Meeting

By Anne Alvarez

The October Venice Neighborhood Council meeting was held at Westminster Elementary on October 23, and was attended by politicians, Hollywood moguls and neighborhood council hopefuls.

Congressional candidates for the newly formed 33^rd district Representative Henry Waxman (D) and Manhattan Beach businessman Mike Bloomfield (I) took the opportunity to address the audience and lay out their policies.

Bloomfield acknowledged it will be difficult to unseat Waxman, who has been in office for over 38 years. However, he feels he just might win because voters are fed up with the hyper partisanship taking place in Washington D.C   . He also emphasized his independence from the two-party system, choosing to break away from the Republican Party to run as an Independent.

Henry Waxman addressed the crowd, pointing out that his opponent left the Republican Party, and proceeded to donate as much money as he possibly could to Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign.  He then went on to discuss his opposition of the Santa Monica airport and how he intends to do something about it in 2015, when its current agreement with the city expires. Waxman also mentioned his disappointment that the Venice Post Office was sold; however, he is pleased with the buildings new owner, Joel Silver. He briefly addressed the thousands of homeless veterans that roam the streets while 400 acres of land at the Brentwood Veterans’ Administration are being privately leased out, insisting he has fought to keep the V.A. from being altogether sold.

No questions from the audience or board members were permitted, and as soon as both candidates finished campaigning, they immediately left the building.

The audience was then introduced to over 50 Venice Council hopefuls including former Venice High school principal J.Loyd (Bud) Jacobs, who wants to improve the quality of Venice neighborhood schools and align community support for programs and schools that serve the local community

Through it all Joel Silver, the new owner of our historic postal building sat quietly in a back row of the auditorium  before being asked to address the crowd. He proceeded by saying how much he has always loved Venice and how he was “happy to have been voted off the island,” meaning the Warner Brothers Burbank lot. “It is going to be an incredible time for us to experience what Venice is, it is a dream come true,” he said.

“We want to change the paradigm of Venice, the paradigm of Hollywood,” Silver said. He discussed his plans for the community, and opened himself up for questions from the audience and board members; only 2 people asked questions: one woman wanted to know if he would hire her, the other sang his praises.

No one asked about the Biberman mural. I had a chance to privately ask Silver about the covenant between him and the Postal service and his willingness to release it to the public. He replied that “it is not out of the question and that it would ultimately be up to the Postal service.”

When asked whether he has ever said that the Biberman mural will be view-able 7 days out of the year, as has been rumored, his reply was “never, that is ridiculous.”

Silver also said that temporarily displaying the painting at a public Venice space like the Venice library is something he is willing to look into as long as he gets the okay from the owners of the mural, the U.S.P.S.

Board member Ivonne Guzman asked Silver if upon his death he would consider willing his new office space to the community, garnering a quick “I don’t plan on dying anytime soon” from Silver, and laughter from the board members and the audience.

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

Public Safety Uber Alles, Says Nuch

By Greta Cobar

A bigger-than-usual crowd showed up to the June 19 Venice Neighborhood Council (VNC) meeting to hear City Attorney Carmen “Nuch” Trutanich.

His opening speech exemplified his job duties of defending the city in lawsuits, of “representing the people of California,” as he put it. He went on to flaunt his job performance by claiming to have removed all illegal billboards in Venice, to have won many lawsuits that saved the city millions of dollars, and to have overall increased our quality of life. What about the illegal electronic billboard on Lincoln and Washington?

A question-and-answer session followed, with Linda Lucks, President of the VNC, asking him to clarify the terms of the Jones Settlement (Jones vs. City of L.A., 2007). Trutanich stated that because of the aforementioned ruling, the city cannot enforce prohibition of sleeping on any sidewalk between the hours of 9pm and 6am.

As far as personal belongings, Trutanich did not agree with the consensus in the room that the city cannot seize them. However, because of another lawsuit, Lavan vs. City of L.A., there is a restraining order in effect prohibiting the city from seizing or destroying property from homeless camps.

According to Councilmember Bill Rosendahl, “if someone claims that items in the streets are their personal belongings, the city cannot remove those items without risk of legal repercussions.”

This is not the first time we heard conflicting statements coming from supposedly trusted officials. During the January 23 VNC meeting Lieutenant Paola Kreefft blatantly misinformed the public that the Jones settlement, allowing people to lie on the sidewalk between 9pm and 6am, is valid only on Skid Row as a result of a recent re-interpretation by a judge. During the January meeting neither she nor Arturo Pina, who was making similar claims, was able to provide further details as to what case, when and where.

The remainder of the question-and-answer session was dominated by Venetians who spoke up to voice concerns more so than to ask questions. Trutanich provided no solutions or answers, but used each opportunity to flash his victories in different lawsuits.

Because both the public and Trutanich did not observe time limits, not everyone who turned in a card to ask a question was able to speak. The Beachhead reporter, amongst others, was not given that opportunity.

When a Beachhead reporter approached Trutanich as he was leaving the VNC meeting and asked about the legality of the beach curfew now in effect midnight to 6am on Ocean Front Walk and the beach, Trutanich responded that it is in effect due to public safety concerns, such as someone drowning.

A Beachhead reporter challenged Trutanich’s statements by quoting Charles Posner, Coastal Program Analyst with the California Coastal Commission (CCC), who had previously stated that “the city does not have any approval from the CCC to implement the curfew.”

In a phone conversation with the Beachhead in January, Posner went on to say that under the Coastal Act the city needs a permit for “any sort of curfews or restrictive ordinances that have such a negative impact on coastal access.” The curfew is in clear violation of the Coastal Act of 1976, according to which “the public should have 24 hour access to the beaches.”

Trutanich was somewhat at a loss for words when challenged with these statements, and walked away while authoritatively stating that public safety supercedes everything else.

We all know by now that the curfew was established to rid OFW of the homeless population, in violation of the Jones settlement. Saving people from drowning in the middle of the night not only was never a concern, but it is a poor fabrication on the part of a city attorney.

Happily, Trutanich’s efforts of replacing Steve Cooley as our county district attorney failed during the June 5 election. Sadly, we are still stuck with him as city attorney.

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.

Unfortunate Times For La Fortuna Market

By Anne Alvarez

The Venice Neighborhood Council voted unanimously, Jan. 17, to recommend that L.A. City Council revoke the liquor license of La Fortuna Market located at 824 Lincoln Blvd., adjacent to Cafe 50s.

Proprietor Margarita Romo and her brother, Emilio, have been serving Venice’s Latino community for over 32 years, a community that is diminishing day by day, thanks to the gentrification taking place.

“That is why they want me out of here, they are doing away with the Latinos.” They see us as trouble, even though my wife, Maria, and I have always paid our taxes, business and licensing fees every year for the past 32 years. We have never asked for anything from anyone. We are respectful hard working people.

“I’ve made one or two mistakes,” added Romo,  referring to a citation he received for having a beer with his lunch in the back of the store back in July  2009. I had to pay a fine and our license was briefly suspended, so never again would I do that.”

During this time Romo adds, “The Los Angeles Police Department was really on me, in particular Officer Paul Bowser. I felt targeted. All these years in business, 29 years at the time, and never any problems.

“All of a sudden a neighbor that lives in the alley directly behind my market is upset that there are homeless people loitering close to her home and she decides it is my fault, if she saw them holding  a beer in hand it was automatically presumed they purchased it from me, even if at the time my store was closed. I actually have pictures of garbage left behind, including empty beer cans. These photos prove the alcohol did not come from me as it is a brand that I don’t carry,” Romo said.

According to a letter from the Department of City Planning there have been allegations of buying and selling narcotics, prostitution, public urination and defecation, lewd conduct,excessive noise, vandalism, loitering, graffiti, trash and debris, illegal parking and police detention.

There was never a complain filed with Alcohol Beverage Control or the Alcohol Tobacco and Tax Trade Bureau regarding these issues, and never any warning for what followed.

Officer Bowser and another officer, not in uniform, showed up at La Fortuna with a paper, which Romo was pressured into signing. He was told by the officers that not doing so, would garner him another condition to abide by, he would have to bag everything in orange plastic bags and he would be arrested  for refusing to cooperate he said.

Romo, whose second language is English was not allowed to call an interpreter. The officers said they would interpret for him.

According to Romo, he was unaware of the content of the document, thinking it pertained to his previous citation.

Soon after a letter arrived from the Zoning Commission asking Romo to show up for a hearing. Romo hired an attorney Robert Starr, who informed him that the document officer Bowser had forced him to sign, was a list of rules that LAPD had imposed on La Fortuna in order to continue operating his store.

These new rules restricted the hours of operation, and demanded they have a uniformed security guard to patrol the 50x18ft store as well as patrol the adjoining alley/parking lot and the adjacent sidewalk area to deter individuals from loitering. The rules also prohibited him from selling anything less than a six pack of beer along with 29 other requirements. Romo complied with  all but one, a full-time security guard.

“It is impossible for me to hire a full-time employee at this time, we are barely getting by. It is unnecessary and unfair to single me out. Other much larger liquor stores and markets, including 7-11, aren’t required to have a guard. The neighbors that are complaining have never set foot in my store, yet they hate me and my family. They want us out. It is incredible how people can be so cruel towards someone they don’t know. This is my livelihood I have spent most of my life in Venice,” Romo said.

Gary Neville whose office is two doors from La Fortuna has been an avid advocate for the Romos.

“ I can’t stand by and watch an innocent person be railroaded, by vicious lies. Romo is a good hard working man,  I have no complaints.”

Neville sent the following letter in support of La Fortuna to VNC members, before the January vote: Attn: Board Members – Tuesday night, January 17,  I shall be distributing photographs of certain activities relating to conditions of Dillon Court alley and in support of La Fortuna Market exemplary and responsible current operation, i.e., Ralph’s market customers toting their singles and glass bottles I find in the alley (not from La Fortuna). I do this in an effort to educate the VNC to the reality of alley drinking problems—Ralph’s Market and some of the places you identified to me—not La Fortuna Market.

The following is an excerpt from an e-mail sent by Neville after the VNC vote: “An innocent man may get railroaded out of the community and lose his only livelihood because of board members seem unwilling to challenge speakers . . . and ask for FACTS! Thank God courts don’t allow unsubstantiated, mindless babble such as mouthed Jan. 17 by both speakers and most council members, instead of provable facts!”

Romo also has the full support of his landlord,  Ortencia Delgado, who says she doesn’t agree with what the city is trying to do. She used to operate La Fortuna from 1975 until 1980 at which time the Romos took it over.

“It is unfair what they are doing, these are good hard working people that never hurt anyone. They are struggling in this economy barely surviving. To take away their liquor license would devastate them,” she said.

Not all are against Romo.  A letter dated Dec. 10, 2011, addressed from the Zoning Administration stated: “LAPD Pacific Area Vice Unit, does not protest the removal of condition 1, licensed security guard required, and condition 3, modification of hours to 1900 hours.” On January 26 LAPD officer Branis conducted an inspection and found no violations.

Lourdes Green, Associate Zoning Administrator, could not comment on the case as her final ruling is still pending. She did say, however, that LAPD is happy with the way Romo is operating his business. In response to a question about how it is that Zoning is involved in the revocation of a liquor license, she said they didn’t have that authority to do so, but they can revoke the use of the space.

According to  Will Salao,  ABC district administrator, La Fortuna has no restrictions or open complaints on file. Salao added that ABC is the only governmental entity allowed to revoke a license, not the  city council, zoning administration or  police department and most certainly not the local neighborhood council. In the meantime, Romo was forced to file a Plan Approval with the Office Of Zoning Administration, as if he was opening a new business, for which he had to pay a $5995 application fee.

The City has also billed Romo $21,025 and applicable surcharges, for looking into this matter, and according to City planning this is only “partial cost recovery.”

The most disturbing part of this story is the devious way that this matter has been mishandled by members of the VNC, who are suppose to represent the entire Venice population, not just based on race or economic standing. Margarita Romo was told by VNC Boardmember Jake Kaufman that it was more than likely the La Fortuna issue would not be voted on that night, yet 40 minutes later, after members of the audience had left, including Margarita Romo and  a couple that had come to speak on behalf of the Romos, the issue was brought up again. Romo’s opponents a chance to speak and persuade the members to vote in favor of of recommending the Romo’s license revocation.

If you would like to support La Fortuna, stop by 824 Lincoln Blvd. Get to know its proprietors and sign the petition to stop the harassment and unfair treatment being brought by the city against a 32-year Venice community member.

Also please contact Councilmember Bill Rosendahl at e-mail councilman.rosendahl@lacity.org or 310-575-8461 to voice your support.

In the meantime the Romo’s patiently wait for their fate to be determined.

Hard Times in Venice for Mayoral Candidate Jan Perry

By Anne Alvarez

Jan Perry, 9^th District councilperson and mayoral candidate, caused a stir when she attended the November 15 Venice Neighborhood Council (VNC) meeting. She was greeted by local residents, who had come to voice their grievances and disapproval towards several of her stances.

Community activist Lydia Ponce unleashed her discontent towards the city council’s recent renege on the promise of establishing a park at the site of the former South Central Farm. Perry herself has been instrumental in spearheading and then obtaining the unanimous vote of the city council to revise the original deal with Ralph Horowitz, former owner, a deal mandating that “2.6 acres of land be reserved for use as a green space.”

Instead Perry suggested Horowitz allocate $2.7 million for renovations and programs at existing neighborhood parks. Perry’s reasoning for the change is that “the site is not a safe or healthy location for park space due to its industrial zoning and location along the heavy-trafficked Alameda corridor.” She urged council members to instead turn the space into much “healthier” and “safer” headquarters of a consortium for four garment makers which “will help create over 600 jobs for the community.” From a more realistic point of view, however, her plan will provide an impoverished community with exploitative low-wage jobs and working conditions on par with sweatshops.

Perry lobbied and gained approval from the city council for a proposal she had submitted regarding reforms to the South Central Farm land deal. In 2003 Horowitz, in a closed session meeting recently deemed illegal by a superior court judge, reached an agreement with the city, after a much debated and publicized battle. A battle which was spearheaded by Horowitz and backed by Perry to have the city sell back the land that had been acquired by the city via eminent domain in 1992. The 14-acre plot of land located at 41^st and Alameda in South Los Angeles had been allocated to community residents for use as farmland by the city and in conjunction with the LA food bank. It became known as the South Central Farm, which at the time was the largest urban farm in the country. The deal reached in 2003 resulted in the 2006 dislocation and forced eviction of over 350 farmers, their crops bulldozed. The land has since remained vacant.

Another issue raised by local residents was a letter Perry sent out to the Planning and Land Use Management Committee (PLUM) members, in which she asks that they revise the proposed sign ordinance to include “a mechanism that would enable the permitting of signs, banners and off-site signs at city-owned facilities such as city parks.” This would permit fast food, soft drink, movie and TV show advertisers to place billboards and ads on boardwalk poles, benches and other public properties.

Protesters greeted Perry with their own anti-advertising ads. Alice Goldstein, a Venice resident, wrapped herself in advertisements to prove her point. Goldstein feels that allowing advertisements at Venice beach would open flood gates for the rest of the city, and no place would be spared from brainwashing bright billboard lights, super graphic wall-scapes and digital signs. “I go to the beach for solace and to get away from my day-to-day stresses, not to be bombarded with advertisements,” added Goldstein.

Perry briefly addressed the protesters, suggesting Venice residents, in conjunction with the VNC, draft an “Opt Out” form. However, no further details were provided and calls to Perry’s office were not returned.

Another issue discussed was the city council’s refusal to appropriate funds to hold elections for neighborhood council board members. The current proposal is to forgo the 2012 elections and automatically extend all terms for an additional two years, until 2014. Don Geagan, long time Venetian and Beachhead collective member, gave Perry a passionately-charged message: “You have no right to take away the right of the people to participate in a grassroots democracy. Ten million residents are represented by 5 county supervisors, which means each county supervisor represents approximately 2 million people, which is not a democracy, but a lack thereof!”

Rachel Siemons brought up ordinance 181410 (Lifeline Subsidy), which was approved and passed in December 2010, with Perry voting in its favor. Since January it has affected over 59,000 DWP customers, increasing their bill by $18-25 per month. This has been a major financial burden to those most affected, who are elderly, disabled and living on fixed incomes. “It is unconscionable how the city council, including Bill Rosendahl and Jan Perry, unilaterally determined that this vulnerable population would be able to afford an increase of this magnitude, and that these residents should single-handedly be responsible for shouldering the burden of refilling the City of Los Angeles’s General Fund, which is where the extra money collected from this fee increase goes,” added Siemons.

The only thing made clear during Perry’s participation at the November VNC meeting was the people’s disapproval of her political tactics. Perry seems to have forgotten that she holds public office, which means she is to represent the people in the community from which she was elected, not investors or real estate moguls who can afford to fatten up her mayoral race fund. As Perry recently stated when stepping down as council president pro tempore citing claims of backroom politics and behind the scenes maneuvering, “I have a First Amendment right to express my disagreement, my disbelief, my disgust.”  We have the same right.

If you would like to voice your opposition to the new sign ordinance, contact Ed Reyes, Chairperson of PLUM and 1^st District Councilmember at 213-485-0763 or our district Councilperson Bill Rosendahl at 310-575-8461. If you have seen your DWP bill increase or you want to get involved and support our community’s most vulnerable residents, contact: SPDs4Change@gmail.com.