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.

Can we all just get along?

By Jim Smith

Rodney King, who uttered that famous question – “can we all get along?” – after being brutalized by police on video, would be proud of the unity displayed by many Venetians who have come together to save the post office. But lately, some discordant voices have complained that some of us are working with people they have identified as the enemy.

Here’s what’s going on. Back in October the Beachhead sponsored a showing of the film, Brush with Life about Edward Biberman, the artist who painted the mural in the post office lobby. Nearly everyone who was concerned and involved in keeping our post office from being closed and sold was there. The audience included Amanda Seward, who heads the Neighborhood Council’s task force on the post office; Mark Ryavec, founder of the Venice Stakeholders Association; Debra Padilla, executive director of SPARC (the mural project); Karl Abrams, chair of Venice Peace and Freedom; Linda Lucks, president of the Venice Neighborhood Council; Jonathan Kaplan, who works with the Los Angeles Conservatory; Suzanne Zada, head of the Biberman Estate; Jeff Kaufman, the producer of Brush with Life; and many more, including several Beachhead Collective members.

We proposed that the group continue to meet, and set a date for an initial coalition meeting, which most of the above attended. A short time later muttering began that we shouldn’t be working with certain members of the coalition, specifically Mark Ryavec and/or Linda Lucks.

Most of the fire directed at Ryavec was because of his role in having “no oversized vehicles” signs put up around Venice, and his presumed role in pushing Rosendahl and others to begin police towing of RVs.

The Beachhead has long argued that homelessness is a social problem, not a police problem, and that a solution must include housing, jobs, medical care, income, etc.

However, on the issue of saving the post office, Ryavec’s position corresponded to that of the Beachhead and the other members of the Coalition. He had the lawyer for the Venice Stakeholders, John Henning, look into the legal rights of Venetians to their post office.

The attorney filed an appeal, which the post office told us couldn’t be done, but which was accepted by the Postal Regulatory Commission.

Several of us followed with our own appeals, which were also accepted. The USPS took the Venice Post Office off the market.

Without Henning’s appeal it might have been sold by now. Ryavec then secured the pro-bono involvement of Gibson, Dunn and Crutcher, one of the largest law firms in the country.

Meanwhile, other community personalities, who have not been involved in the effort to save the post office, began telling me that we should have nothing to do with Ryavec in the coalition. One person even told me that it would give him prestige (as if). Oddly, none of the naysayers have clean hands. One takes money from the Bank of America and other 1 percent corporations for his social service organization. Another gladly accepts food from Whole Foods Market, an $8 billion corporation that tried to torpedo Obama’s health care plan, does not believe in pensions for its employees, and hates unions.

Some people would say that it’s ok to wheedle money and sustenance out of big corporations, and maybe it is. But by the same token, shouldn’t it be ok to try to unite everyone in Venice around a cause with which we all agree?

We are living in the age of the 99 percent, an ingenious way of looking at the world. According to the 99 percent doctrine, we have more in common than we have separating us. This doesn’t mean that we have no divisions or differences of opinion, just that our differences with the ruling elite are much more profound.

I’m convinced that much of the division in Venice comes from our old friends in Los Angeles. They have a vested interest in keeping us divided so that we don’t decide to act in our own interest and rebel against the downtown oligarchy.

Even the hubbub with the RVs, which nearly tore Venice apart, can be traced to the city’s Dept. of Transportation which moved on its own to establish overnight parking districts. The resulting publicity made Venice a Mecca for RVs, who began making Venice their home. Attitudes on both sides hardened as the city bureaucracy and its elected officials took punitive actions against the hapless mobile campers. Today, we’re back to pre-frenzy numbers of people living in RVs, many of whom are long-time Venice residents.

No one in Venice benefited from this division among neighbors more than the city of Los Angeles which is more than happy to keep looting Venice of its tax revenue while giving little in return to compensate for the glut of tourists we welcome every day.

Greater unity in Venice is not impossible. It should be obvious to any impartial observer that the only beneficiary of old grudges alive among Venetians is the city of Los Angeles, which can claim that we are incapable of governing ourselves.

Since this is the month that we celebrate Martin Luther King, Jr., we should ask what he would do. A partial answer might be found in his quote: “We may have all come on different ships, but we’re in the same boat now.” Indeed, we’re all in the good ship 99 percent, now.

100 Years Ago: 1911 Was A Banner Year in Venice – City of Venice and Venice Union High School Both Created

By Jim Smith

Venice may have been founded in 1905, but it didn’t become the City of Venice until May 29, 1911.

On that day, the good citizens of Venice voted to change its name from Ocean Park City to Venice.

Abbot Kinney, the founder of Venice, had originally been one of the city fathers of Ocean Park, an independent community in the early days of the 20th century. He broke with his partners in 1903, and developed the south end of OP into what became known as Venice. But it was still officially Ocean Park, until a petition was circulated which culminated in the overwhelming vote to call it Venice.

In 1911, Venice was a booming community. New businesses and houses were going up everywhere. The Venice Daily Vanguard reported one summer day when 35,000 people came to the beach. Imagine!

There were restaurants, hotels, theaters, free outdoor concerts, the amusement pier and bars that, contrary to neighboring cities, stayed open on Sunday.

The paper reported the astounding sale of a large home on Rialto Avenue for $6,000. Most houses went for much less.

Interested in renting? Here’s a six-room cottage, fully furnished, including a piano, for $25 a month.

Both houses are probably selling today for 100 to 200 times as much, even though they are 100 years older.

Venice needed a high school to save its teenagers a long commute to school. In short order, the Venice Union High School – a merger of the Ocean Park and Playa del Rey school districts (soon to be Venice and Playa del Rey), was created. It took over the old Bath House on the Lagoon where our Post Office is currently located.

By August, Venetians were voting on a petition from the Walgrove Avenue area and from Playa del Rey to be annexed by the new city.  It passed overwhelmingly, and swelled the size of Venice from its small beginnings as Venice of America which clung to the beach. After 1911, our city went all the way to Imperial Highway.

 

Does Venice Have A Future?

Venice has a great history. Our small community has become known worldwide for creativity, invention and alternative living.

What will it be like in 2111?

If the danger of losing our uniqueness in the sea of Angelino mediocrity wasn’t enough, we are at risk from global climate change as is the rest of the world, perhaps even more so.

Pacific storms combined with rising sea levels could rip up our beaches and flood Venice as it subsides and oceans rise.

Without cityhood, it is difficult to envision a sea wall being built in time to hold back the water.

We may have to contend with too much salt water, and not enough fresh water. Can we depend on the DWP for a steady supply of water if drought dries up the Southwest and Sierra Nevadas? Again, without cityhood can we expect a desalination plant to be built in Venice that would convert sea water to fresh water?

Rising waters may force us to return to the old days of using canals instead of streets. New housing construction may begin with long poles driven deep into the soil to keep our homes afloat.

The original Venice in the Adriatic understood that its well-being depended upon its marriage with the sea.

Likewise, as global climate change proceeds and food supplies become less abundant, we may find that our survival depends on Venice fisher folk harvesting fish, seaweed and algae.

Even if the world elites change course and take dramatic action to avert climate disaster, we’re still stuck cheek and jowl next to a larger city with a different goal – maximizing profits. And there are billions in profits to be made by converting Venice into an upscale and sterile resort for the wealthy. It’s only the tenacity of several generations of Venetians that has prevented it from happening already.

If Venice has a future it will include the poor, the middle class and the rich. There will be lots of Blacks, Latinos and whites of many backgrounds.

It will continue to be a place that honors its artists, its poets, its odd balls and dissidents. To keep Venice, with all its warts and scars, we all have to become dissidents to the dominant culture that otherwise will suck us into a shallow, zombie-like, consumerist lifestyle.

How Can Venice Be Preserved?

There are currently 24 historical districts in Los Angeles (HPOZs). There is no reason why Venice should not be the 25th.

A Venice historical district can be proposed to the City Council by our Councilmember, Bill Rosendahl.

At the least it should include the walk streets, canals, old canal district, Abbot Kinney Blvd., Ocean Front Walk and most or all of Venice west of Lincoln.

See “Neighborhood Initiatives” at laconservancy.org and zimas.lacity.org for more information.

Let’s preserve Venice for future generations.

–Jim Smith