Venice Loves You – NOPDs

By Greta Cobar

Discrimination against those opposing Overnight Parking Districts (OPDs) in Venice was in full swing at the April Venice Neighborhood Council (VNC) meeting.

No speaker cards were used for the discussion concerning OPDs, and Marc Saltzberg, VNC vice-president presiding over the OPD discussion, favored those supporting OPDs. They were allowed and encouraged to speak, while those opposing OPDs were marginalized and silenced.

As a result, the public is currently misinformed when it comes to OPDs. Here are some facts to consider:

• Price: How much is it going to cost you to park in front of your house? By how much will the rate increase each year? How much will you and your friends spend on parking tickets?

• Hassle: Do you look forward to going to some city office miles from here to pick up your permits? Is that something you want to do right before guests are coming over, to have to go and pick up a permit for them? What do you think will take longer, the drive or the waiting in line?

• Domino effect, not democracy: Although two thirds of all residents on a certain block would have to sign a petition requesting OPDs on their block, once one block signs such a petition, the blocks next to it will be forced to do it. When a person living on a block with OPDs has a visitor, that visitor will take the parking space in front of your house if your block has no OPDs. And therefore OPDs would create a domino effect in which people will be forced into signing up for OPDs on their block.

• Attention, beach residents!: Parking in your area will become even more congested under OPDs. Under the proposed settlement the area West of Pacific is not eligible for OPDs. Therefore all visitors coming to Venice will be looking for parking in that area.

• OPDs will not provide parking relief: Parking scarcity is a problem during the daytime, not at night. OPDs will be effective 2am to 5am only, when parking is not a problem in Venice. The only area where it is difficult to find parking during the night is West of Pacific. Ironically, OPDs are not going to be an option in that area.

• OPDs are illegal: Everybody needs to have 24 hour access to the entire Coastal Zone, which lies West of Lincoln. Not allowing people to park during certain hours anywhere within the Coastal Zone is a violation of the Coastal Act.

• Restriction of access: Sharing the Coastal Zone with people who are not as lucky as we are to live here is a Venetian responsibility. Restricting access through OPDs is wrong, immoral and unethical.

• Selective targeting and discrimination: “As a result of the Oversize Vehicle Ordinance people living in RVs have moved to vans,” stated Mark Ryavec, who is responsible for bringing forward this new settlement. The real intent of OPDs is to target people living in vehicles. Although that attitude might fly high in other parts of town, it really goes against the Venice way of doing things.

The only person not supporting OPDs who was allowed to speak during the meeting was Sara Wan, former commission member with the California Coastal Commission. She warned that OPDs would change the characteristics of our community. She also warned that the city of Los Angeles needs to put in place all proposed changes in order to accommodate OPDs before the parking restrictions go into effect. She mentioned that the city does not have a good record of following through.

Wan emphasized the fact that the settlement is only tentative, and it still needs to be approved by the Coastal Commission. In her opinion, because the Commission had not approved two very similar settlements in 2009 and 2010, it is likely and expected to follow its precedent rulings.

Presentations supporting OPDs at the VNC meeting were given by: Tamara Martin, Manager Analyst, of Parking Permits Division for the Department of Transportation; Arturo Pina, Councilperson Bill Rosendahl’s Chief of Staff; Jane Usher, from Carmen Trutanich’s office.

During the Question and Answer section of the meeting, the aforementioned speakers were allowed to answer the public’s questions. However, following Saltzberg’s suggestion, Ryavec became part of the panel answering the public’s questions even though he was the one who paid an attorney to come up with the settlement that would establish OPDs, if approved. Talk about conflict of interest.

Meanwhile, Linda Lucks, VNC President, chose to recuse herself from the discussion concerning OPDs following Ryavec’s request of an investigation of ethics violation concerning Lucks’s employment with the Venice Community Housing Corporation, organization which has opposed OPDs.

Although all those opposing OPDs were allowed to talk at large, when a question was directed towards Wan, who was against OPDs, Ryavec took over the microphone and proceeded to answer the question himself. Did he just make himself exempt from conflict of interest violations?

The public needs to build a strong stand against Ryavec’s attempt to fool the public and the Coastal Commission into something that was already denied twice.

Send letters opposing OPDs in Venice addressed to John (Jack) Ainsworth, Senior Deputy Director and
Teresa Henry, District Managerto, at the following address: 45 Fremont Street, Suite 2000, San Francisco, CA 94105-2219.

And come out to voice your opinion during the June hearing, to be held on either June 12, 13 or 14 at the Long Beach City Council Chambers, 333 W. Ocean Blvd., Long Beach.

Censored at the April VNC Meeting: Interview with Sara Wan

By Greta Cobar

Sara Wan, former California Coastal Commission member, attended the April 16 Venice Neighborhood Council (VNC) meeting. She spoke with the Beachhead subsequent to the VNC meeting, and this is what she had to say concerning Overnight Parking Districts (OPDs) in Venice:

Beachhead: What do you think about OPDs in Venice?

Sara Wan: The residents in Venice don’t know the long-term effects of OPDs, and neither does the public. The April 16 VNC meeting was rigged. There was no attempt to listen to what problems might be created for homeowners, residents and members of the public. The presentations were very one-sided. How are they going to determine who gets to vote in order to establish OPDs?

Beachhead: Were you unhappy with the VNC meeting?

Sara Wan: The meeting was a big disappointment – they did not allow me to say what I wanted to say. I wanted to give a little background on why the commission turned OPDs down twice – the public should know what the reasoning was. VNC reps limited me to talking only about the current settlement and told me that if the public wanted to know more about the previous defeated attempts to establish OPDs in Venice, they would address those questions to me during the Question and Answer section. However, when someone did ask me a question, Marc Saltzberg, who was presiding over the meeting, directed Mark Ryavec to take over the microphone from me, which he did. He then took all the allotted time to express his position, and I was never allowed to answer the two questions the person had for me.

Beachhead: Is the city of Los Angeles questioning the Coastal Commission’s jurisdiction over parking?

Sara Wan: The original intent of all of this was to challenge the California Coastal Commission’s power to regulate parking by stating that parking does not fall under the definition of “development”, and therefore is not under the jurisdiction of the Coastal Commission. “Development” is defined in the Coastal Act as anything considered to be a “change in density or intensity of use.” Parking is definitely a change in intensity of use.

By voting in support of the California Coastal Act of 1976, the public stated that the Coastal Zone be treated differently than the rest of the state. The city has the power to regulate parking outside of the Coastal Zone, but the city does not have the right to over-ride the Coastal Commission.

Beachhead: What do you think about parking restrictions in the Coastal Zone? 

Sara Wan: Parking restrictions create preferential treatment for the people who live there. OPDs are against public access and are designed to limit the public’s ability to park and therefore to use the beach. OPDs are against the Coastal Act of 1976.

OPDs will eventually lead to Preferential Permit Parking (PPD, which allow residents within 1500 feet of major commercial streets to apply for 24-hour permit parking). PPD would limit non-resident parking to a few hours, while residents with a City permit could park with no restrictions.

Beachhead: How is the city of Los Angeles bringing the issue of fairness into the discussion concerning OPDs?

Sara Wan: One of the main issues raised by Rosendahl’s s office has been the matter of fairness (if the rest of the city can have OPDs, it is unfair for Venice not to be able to have them as well). This is an attack on the Coastal Act – if you think that the Coastal Zone should be treated no different than the rest of the city, then you don’t think there should be a Coastal Act, which was voted by the people.

Beachhead: What do you think about the current midnight to 5am curfew on the beach and Ocean Front Walk?

Sara Wan: It is illegal. The city never got a permit from the Coastal Commission for the curfew. The public needs to write to the Chair of the Coastal Commission and ask the Commission to take action to deal with the enforcement of the curfew and initiate enforcement action against the city.

Beachhead: Do you think that by increasing the number of parking spaces available in the early morning hours the new settlement might be approved by the Commission?

Sara Wan: No, all those parking lots are supposed to be open 24 hours, they should be used for public access now.

Beachhead: What can the public do to let the Commission know that they are against OPDs in Venice?

Sara Wan: The public needs to understand that this is not a set thing. Attend the Commission hearing in June ( Long Beach City Council Chambers, 333 W. Ocean Blvd., Long Beach), following which the Commission could deny the settlement establishing OPDs in Venice, could approve them with modifications, or approve them as they are now.

Letters can be sent to the San Francisco office (45 Fremont Street, Suite 2000, San Francisco, CA 94105-2219) to be forwarded to the each of the commissioners. Some of the commissioners have their addresses listed on the Commission’s website (http://www.coastal.ca.gov/address.html), and in that case letters can be sent to them directly.

Phone calls can be made to the Long Beach office (562-590-5071) for further questions and comments.

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

Sidewalk and Bus Stop Taken Over by Owner of Venice Historical Post Office

By Greta Cobar

Joel Silver, the new owner of the historical building that formerly housed the Venice Post Office, does not have permits to block the sidewalk and the bus stop around his property, but he does not seem to care.

The public needs to call inspector Ed Oddone at 213-252-3085 for the limits on Silver’s building permits to be enforced.

However, according to real estate attorney Michael King, “the city is very lackadaisical about temporary fence installation enforcement because the contractors move it when the inspectors show up and move it back when they leave.”

First Silver denied public access to the historical building, then he claimed ownership of the Edward Biberman mural that is still the property of the USPS, and now he is taking over the entire sidewalk, a lane of street traffic, and a very busy bus stop.

Unabated, he might extend his fence to the entire Windward circle and beyond. If that seems unlikely, what he has done so far was beyond our worst imagined case scenario just a year ago.

Although the Venice Neighborhood Council in February passed a motion to move the Edward Biberman mural out of Silver’s office, and put it into a public space such as the Abbot Kinney Library, no further action was taken.

According to the Phase III Design Plan Review, Silver is replacing things like wainscoting, wood paneling, wood-frame bulletin boards, and other defining features of the building, with the provision that “they would be safely and securely stored so that they could be reinstated at a future date, if so desired.”

Angelica Houston, the last millionaire to move into the area, removed the historical Venice colonnades in front of her compound, and they were never to be found again.

Call the inspector or risk getting hit by a car when walking along one of Venice’s busiest streets.

Failed Boardwalk Ordinance Leads to Abuse of Power

By Greta Cobar

As the Beachhead fore-saw in its January 2012 issue, the new Ordinance regulating free speech on Ocean Front Walk (OFW) is not being enforced, and vending is in full swing (http://bit.ly/13dLKrQ). The Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) have displayed full power and control over selective enforcement, choosing to ignore vendors of mass-produced items and targeting local performers with tickets and arrests.

On March 20 Solomon the Snake Man, also known as Willie Lee Turner, was arrested on a panhandling charge. The incident was video-tapped by Vivianne Robinson and highly publicized online (http://bit.ly/11Txvne and http://bit.ly/11SkLBd).

The LAPD proceeded to confiscate all of Solomon’s belongings, which they kept even after he posted the $100 bail fee. After performing the same show, in the same spot, for the last twelve years, how much sense does it make for the LAPD to tell him that he cannot do it anymore? And how much sense does it make for the LAPD to confiscate Solomon’s rubber snakes and everything else he used to put on his show? Is the LAPD implying that he should just sit on a street corner or on OFW truly panhandling, mocking the LAPD officers’ charge for taking him to jail?

How easy do you think it is to lose your way of earning an income? And who gives the LAPD that type of power?

All of that while more than half of OFW free speech spots are once again taken by out-of-town vendors, re-selling made-in-China merchandise bought downtown. That was exactly what the new OFW Ordinance, which took effect late January 2012, was supposed to eliminate.

Some of us had our Summer 2011 plans derailed by the city of Los Angeles’s decision to hold dozens of meetings concerning the new OFW ordinance. Although Venetians did not sit back, but instead, like myself, attended each and every one of those meetings during the summer months, input from the community was completely ignored, and once again downtown higher-ups drafted their own version of the legislature.

One of the points that we did not agree with was the punishment proposed and finally provided for in the 2012 Ordinance. All repeat offenses carry misdemeanor charges with possible $1000 fines and six months in jail.

Previous to this latest Ordinance, all offenses were categorized as infractions, not misdemeanors, did not carry a minimum charge and definitely did not have a jail sentence attached to them.

Besides being opposed to the fines and punishments for non-compliance, Venetians also asked that the First Amendment be mentioned in the Ordinance, opposed artists being called “vendors”, and the free speech zone being divided into “designated” spaces, but none of our suggestions were incorporated into the final draft of the Ordinance. Who would have ever thought that free speech could be limited to a marked box?

The back-bone of the Ordinance, stating that all spots are to be occupied on a first-come basis, was a failure from the beginning, as the same people occupy the same spots day in and day out.

All of these legislations created by downtown higher-ups who chose to ignore our outspoken community activists did not make provisions for enforcement. As previously reported by the Beachhead (bit.ly/13dLKrQ), at the Dec. 15 2011 Friends of the Boardwalk meeting Lieutenant Paola Kreefft stated that the LAPD does not have a plan to enforce the new ordinance going into effect at the end of January 2012. Not surprisingly, the LAPD shied away from enforcing the Ordinance, but proved to be blunt when it came to selective enforcement on several instances (http://bit.ly/XKdWuz and http://bit.ly/WZwKZL).

Just in case you are thinking that a new Ordinance needs to be drafted, remember that this is the sixth revision of the Los Angeles Municipal Code 42.15, first introduced in 2004. The previous revision, of 2008, established the lottery system of allocating the 205 designated spaces on OFW. It was deemed unconstitutional by U.S. District Judge Dean Pregerson in October 2010 on the grounds that it violated the First Amendment.

Although many OFW artists and vendors did not agree with the lottery system of allocating spaces, the very vast majority of them bought into it. Solomon was one of the very few who never joined the lottery system.

Just a few months ago a highly popular online video of an LAPD officer in Venice (http://bit.ly/XjMVMS) abusing his power resulted in public outcry, which led to the ticket being dismissed and the officer being disciplined. The same thing is bound to happen regarding Officer Gonzalez’s arrest of Solomon, which was deemed as abuse of power and selective enforcement not only by the Beachhead, but even by websites that have traditionally been supportive of the LAPD.

Please contact your local police officials to let them know that you are against LAPD engaging in selective enforcement.

Abbot Kinney to Venice: Bring Me Back Home

By Greta Cobar

The new owner of the Venice historic post office not only removed the Edward Biberman mural from the lobby, but is also planning to move it to a different location in the building and to partition the lobby. Although Joel Silver did purchase the building from the United States Postal Service (USPS) for the mere $7.3 million, the mural does not belong to him, but remains the property of the USPS. This is a perfect example of possession being 99% of ownership.

By providing for only six days per year for the public to view Biberman’s mural through a First Amendment to the Covenant between himself and the USPS, Silver is definitely acting as if the mural belongs to him. When was the last time you received a piece of art  probably worth hundreds of thousands of dollars as a gift from a public institution constantly claiming huge deficits?

Because the USPS still owns the mural, as a public institution it needs to make it available to the public. Depicting Abbot Kinney, his ideal Venice and the changes that took place following annexation, the 1941 “Story of Venice” mural is a community treasure that needs to be taken out of Silver’s office and placed in a public building, such as the Abbot Kinney library. The mural is currently being stored in Santa Monica.

Throughout our now two-year struggle with the USPS concerning the building and the mural, we have experienced lack of communication and broken promises. Next obvious step would be to ask our political representatives for some type of representation for a town of 40,000 against one millionaire new-comer.

Our new Congressperson Henry Waxman met for breakfast with Venice Neighborhood Council (VNC) President Linda Lucks. He should have attended a VNC meeting instead to hear public comments and respond to questions.

“He acted surprised that it (the mural) is only leased and and that the mural had been removed from the property, saying that he didn’t think murals could be removed,” Lucks said following their conversation.

During the February VNC meeting the VNC passed a motion to move the Biberman mural out of Silver’s office and into a public building, such as the library. Let’s hope the VNC and the public have the power to actually do something more than pass a motion.

Meanwhile, the current state of our postal service, an institution provided for in the Constitution, would be more believable as science-fiction.

On February 7 Postmaster General Patrick Donahoe announced that the USPS would end Saturday mail delivery and collections in August. How the USPS was able to do this without Congressional approval is unclear, as the USPS’s own five-year plan states that moving to five-day delivery requires legislation.

The USPS first claimed that ending Saturday delivery would save them $3.3 billion dollars, but the Postal Regulatory Commission (PRC) determined that the savings were over-estimated by $1 billion and the revenue loss was under-estimated by $0.4 billion. The final saving estimate announced by the USPS was $2 billion, a number much higher than the one the PRC had suggested.

“Eliminating Saturday mail delivery does not confirm to the Nation’s postal policy,” said Ruth Goldway, PRC Chairperson and Venice resident. When it came to fighting to save our post office, she recused herself from the vote on weather the PRC has jurisdiction to advice the USPS regarding the sale of a post office. It was decided that it does not, but that decision is still being fought in Washington district court by our attorney, Elaine Mittleman.

As the second largest employer in the nation, it is estimated that between 50,000 and 80,000 jobs will be lost as a result of ending Saturday delivery. This is how our government is responding to the Great Recession.

“Building post offices put people to work during the Depression, but it did something more. It showed that even in the midst of a terrible economic crisis, the federal government was capable of doing grand things. The post offices linked individuals and communities, even in the most remote areas, to the federal government back in Washington, and they served as a symbol of government permanence, service and culture,” writes Steve Hutkins on www.savethepostoffice.com. The historic Venice post office  is an example of a grand structure built during the Depression with funds provided by the Works Project Administration.

The people most positively affected by the elimination of Saturday mail are the big mailers, and the losers as always are the elderly, disabled, poor, rural population, small daily and weekly newspapers that deliver on Saturdays, people who vote by mail and the little people in general.

Saturday delivery is cut under the pretext of a $1.3 billion deficit, but if the USPS were not required to pre-fund the health benefits of its employees for the next 75 years in a ten-year period, it would actually run a profit of $144 million per year. No other business in the country is required to pre-fund the health benefits of its employees.

In addition, the USPS has over-paid into its retirement fund to the tunes of $75 billion. When it came time to eliminate the over-payment by reducing the payments, Congress decided that doing so would decrease the federal budget by over $4 billion dollars a year, and opposed it.

The USPS is a self-sufficient institution with a strong labor union that still pays live-able wages and that is being destroyed by the private shipping companies in order to increase their profits in what has been called a “manufactured crisis.”

The price of stamps quietly increased from $.45 to $.46 cents beginning February 1, but who else do you think is going to deliver a piece of paper anywhere in the country in two days for less than half of a dollar? Did you know that mail is delivered to Indian reservations on donkeys and to remote regions in Alaska on sleighs? Did you know that when storm Sandy hit the East coast and everything was closed (schools, airports, subways, trains, businesses), postal workers did not stop or delay delivery, not even on the day the storm hit?

No, it does not make sense to artificially cripple in order to privatize one of our last great federal public institutions. Yet the privatization of our postal service is what has been taking place, and the USPS is pushing, against public opinion, a plan to “hybridize” postal service by partially privatizing it. There goes the $.46 stamp and all other services to remote, under-served areas that do not run a profit, but a public service to the neediest instead.

Just in case you’re about to start crying, here’s some hilarious news: last month the USPS decided to manufacture a line of clothing called “Rain Heat & Snow” using the USPS logo in a false attempt to increase revenue. After years of revenue suppression, such as not having $.01 stamps for sale the day postage price increased by a penny.

The Venice post office is habitually out of money orders, has a limited selection of stamps and long lines that anyone in their right mind would avoid. It is the USPS’s written policy to provide service in less than 20 minutes, but we know that not to be true in Venice. No wonder the Yelp rating for our Venice post office is 1.5 out of 5. That’s way below failure. Those that don’t know where the new mini office is located would never be able to find it, either: its listed address is 313 Grant while its actual location is Riviera and Windward, inaccessible from Grant.

One of the most effective ways to suppress revenue is by reducing hours of service. In addition to eliminating Saturday delivery, that is exactly what the USPS has been implementing since January.

Under the POStPLAN, which has been implemented during the months of January and February, 3025 post offices throughout the country have had their hours reduced to 6, 4 or 2 hours of customer service. The plan is to reduce hours of operation at 13,000 post offices over the next two years.

Sad news indeed. And yet even sadder is that the USPS has conducted over 7000 public meetings and is planning for an additional 6000 under the false pretense of listening to customer feedback regarding the reduction in hours of service. Although holding these meetings is expensive, those that attend are faced with two options: close the post office or reduce the hours. By the time the meetings are held, the USPS has already decided what the new hours will be and public input is dismissed.

What the meetings have reportedly turned into, however, is a publicity stunt on the part of the USPS, in a constant cry about deficits and decreased revenues. The Internet is always to blame. However, the Internet brought about Ebay, Amazon, Netflix and countless other businesses that use the USPS to ship their products. Yes, USPS still has the lowest rates and is the preferred method of shipping. And hence the private companies want to tap into its business.

The USPS seems to have been bought out, and seems to have voluntarily placed itself on a self-destructive spiral. Selling historical post office buildings for a fraction of what they are worth and giving away valuable public art, like they did here in Venice, is just an example. In addition to the Santa Monica, Berkley and other historical offices throughout the country, the latest victim is the Bronx post office, built in 1935 also under Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal program. Its lobby features thirteen murals painted in the late 1930s by Shahn Bryson and Bernarda Bryson, two noted American muralists who have worked with the likes of Diego Rivera.

Just don’t say that it makes no sense, for it does: the USPS’s real estate agent is CB Richard Ellis, and its chairman is Richard Blum, Senator Diane Feinstein’s husband. Even a one percent commission off the sales of our post offices would bring a $10 million profit for CB Richard Ellis, and the percentage is likely to be higher.

And here’s what’s likely coming to your corner of the street in the near future: a cluster box. Instead of delivering mail to every household, as is the current practice, the USPS’s goal is to eventually get everybody on cluster boxes, which means that you would have to walk down to the corner of your street to get your mail.

No, I cannot explain why a federal institution is purposely destroying one of the cheapest, oldest, most reliable, most profitable and most convenient services provided by unionized employees. But when private profit interests come in, their profit is the explanation.

Here in Venice, we need to minimize Silver’s acquisition and control over our community resources by moving the historical Biberman mural that belongs to the public out of his compound and into a public building, such as the library. Contact Waxman at 310-652-3095, the VNC at 310-421-8627 and the USPS at 800-ASK-USPS demanding your access to public art.

Artist Profile: Barbara Mastej and John Ransom

By Greta Cobar

It might not be breaking news that Venice attracts artists and fosters creativity, but take a moment and listen to the story of Barbara Mastej and John Ransom, who for nineteen years have watched their love, creativity, co-habitation and body of work steadily grow in a green little bungalow in the Canals.

Beachhead: Why do you create?

Barbara: It’s a compulsion, I can’t stop. Not one day goes by that I don’t make something.

John: It’s something that needs to come out – like an exhale.

Beachhead: Are you a vehicle?

Barbara: I’m a radio. I think that there’s something in my make-up that’s like a receiver.

While John paints abstract surrealism, Barbara experiments with just about anything and everything from realistic paintings to collages, sculptures, mosaic, thread, and so on.

John: Barbara is the most creative person I’ve met in my life. I describe her as the artist in the true sense of the word.

He described their life together as a puzzle piece, where things need to move around to make space for other pieces to move from one place to another. I could see how they graciously move around each other in order to move forward, together. Having met while working in the advertising business for Saatchi & Saatchi, they’ve lived in the same little house on the Canals for the past nineteen years, and are now running their own advertising company while trying to make a living off of just selling their artwork.

Barbara: We were the only people in the agency that lived in Venice, everyone else was afraid of Venice back then.

Beachhead: What’s your definition of good art?

John: Commercial art is mind manipulation. I think that when something evokes an emotion, it’s good art. My abstract paintings are meant to allow the viewer to go to dozens of different places. When someone hangs one of my pieces in his or her place, they may ultimately find secrets in the painting that reflect secrets in themselves.

Barbara: One of my current projects is a series of portraits of popular Venice residents like Suzy Williams, Sponto, Frank Lane, Robert Harris. On some paintings I work for long periods of time, some come quickly. Although they need to be recognizable, the portraits are not photo-realistic and I consider them done when they exhibit that intangible quality of personal energy.

Beachhead: John, your “Top of the Bottom” – the “Ravens” series depicts realistic-looking birds in an other-wise abstract painting.

John: Yes, I often include one realistic element in each painting. It gives people a reference point, and then the mind can imagine things. My observation of ravens and crows in their day-to-day life was the inspiration for the “Ravens” series. These majestic birds exhibit certain behavioral traits that I most admire in humans. They are independent, yet communal. Intelligent animals, they train their young and maintain expectations of fellow members of their flock. Their generally business-like demeanor does not seem to prevent them from experiencing the exhilarating aspects of our planet.

I am drawn to the contrasts and the majestic feelings that I get when I look at John’s work, and I smile at the familiar Venice faces so well illustrated by Barbara. 

Beachhead: Barbara, how did the Venice series get started?

Barbara: When the community I loved so much gentrified and changed around me, I discovered that painting was a way to channel my grief for the loss of friends and landscape. Matt Frost was the very first portrait I did in my Venice series. I didn’t know him, but had always wanted to photograph his cottage with all of the interesting stuff he displayed all around the outside. The place (no longer there…now it’s a tall concrete structure) was on a corner, so you could look at it from several sides and see all sorts of cool things. I was afraid to introduce myself to Matt at first, because he was quite an imposing figure. However, one evening, I asked John to come along, and we happened to see him walking across Ocean Avenue and go into Kim’s Market. He turned out to be really cool. When I asked if I could photograph him in front of his house, he said “Sure!” Turned out he had just found out that very day that the little house had been sold, and he was being forced to leave. It took me a good two and a half years to finish my portrait of him. He used to laugh and say he hoped he’d live to see it, when I’d see him around the old hood once his house was leveled. At last, I sought him out when it was finished, and had him come over. His eyes actually teared up when he saw the painting, and we were friends after that.

Beachhead: John, where do your visions and your inspiration come from?

John: Traditionally trained and a surrealist at heart, I paint from concepts, visions and dreams. The translation of thought into images is the core of my work. I avoid figurative subjects unless they play a requisite role in my concept. I find abstract work a much more direct expression of intimate emotions and sensations, as well as a better conduit to convey them to others. Visual context and feelings aroused are left to the interpretation of the viewer.

I really enjoyed both John’s and Barbara’s art pieces, but I actually got a real kick out of meeting them and seeing how they are able to work together on all of their advertisement projects like two perfect pieces of a puzzle. It’s nice to go to a little cottage on the Canals and feel completely content with the creativity and harmony of the place, inside and out. 

John: The only yelling that goes on in this house is me yelling at the computer.

Their artwork is now displayed on the patio at Hama Sushi until the end of February. The art gallery in the Cadillac hotel is currently being renovated, but some of their paintings that were exhibited there in a previous show are still hanging in the lobby of the hotel. For more about John and Barbara see , www.johnransomla.com, www.barbaraofvenice.com, www.oddmanout.biz.

Mural Illustrating Abbot Kinney Should Be Moved to Abbot Kinney Library

By Greta Cobar

We as Venetians are upholding our reputation of not giving up. So here’s the latest on our up-and-going, not-nearly-over fight with the United States Postal Service (USPS) and the new owner of our former, historic post office, Joel Silver.

The Story of Venice mural by renowned artist Edward Biberman, formerly housed in our historic post office, remains the property of the USPS even though the building has been sold into private ownership. Ever since the sale of the building, which closed on August 2, we have tirelessly tried to obtain a copy of the covenant concerning the mural between Silver and the USPS. Both Bill Rosendahl’s and Janice Hahn’s offices made vain promises of obtaining the document and making it public. It took a Freedom of Information Act request filed by a Mark Ryavek to finally view the document four months after the sale of the building.

The document, dated August 2, starts out by optimistically stating that “USPS agrees to loan the Mural to the Borrower, and the Borrower agrees to borrow the Mural from the USPS, for the purpose of exhibiting the Mural for a term of fifty (50) years.” However, through undisclosed maneuvering with the USPS, Silver managed to add a “First Amendment to Loan Agreement” on August 21, which states that “Borrower agrees to provide public access to the Mural six days per calendar year during the hours of 10 am and 6pm Pacific Time by appointment.”

There goes the request by the Coalition to Save the Post Office, representing virtually all Venice organizations and a wide spectrum of citizens, to maintain access to the mural during the same hours as the USPS had back when it owned the building.

In addition, although the initial loan agreement states that “prior to any such restoration (of the Mural), the Borrower shall send notice to the USPS of the proposed restoration for USPS review and approval,” the August 21 amendment negates any such responsibility by stating that “Borrower shall not be obligated, prior to any Mural restoration, to obtain the approval by the USPS of the proposed restoration provided.”

No wonder Silver was able to remove the mural from the wall in spite of expert and community opposition.

I personally filed an official request with the Venice Neighborhood Council (VNC) to introduce a motion to move the mural depicting Abbot Kinney from Silver’s property, which does not allow public viewing, to a public space, such as the Abbot Kinney Library. Let’s hope that the VNC will represent the wishes of the community on this issue, and let’s hope that their recommendation will actually have the power to make a difference.

The battle against the USPS is still being fought on more than one front. A new brief was filed on December 19 in Washington DC in our lawsuit against the USPS. The Circuit Court has combined our case with two others, involving Pimmit Branch Post Office in Northern Virginia and the Spring Dale, West Virginia Post Office, all represented by Elaine Mittleman.

The current brief submitted by Mittleman quotes the USPS as stating, in its own document, that “to maintain the spirit of the section in placing artwork in Post Offices, postal policy provides for the relocation of these works into the new facility when a Post Office moves so the art can continue to enrich people during the normal course of their lives” (http://1.usa.gov/12RK0kW).

Although our new mini, hole-in-the-wall post office at the mail sorting annex does not currently have enough space to exhibit the Biberman artwork, the original building has a very high ceiling. With minor modifications the current ceiling could be raised to accommodate the mural. However, after our one-way communications with the USPS over the past two years, we might choose to avoid dealing with them and move the mural to the Library instead.

“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” is a commitment that the Final Decision about the Venice Post Office included, according to the latest brief filed by Mittleman in Washington DC.

The Postal Regulatory Commission (PRC), whose mission is to represent the public in dealing with the USPS, “failed to consider the commitment by the Postal Service that the mural will remain available for public viewing. In addition, the PRC did not address the historic preservation issues concerning the Venice Post Office and the mural,” according to the brief submitted by Mittleman.

Yes, we are taking on a big, federal institution whose mission seems to be self-destruction in favor of private shipping companies behind the excuse of a manufactured crisis. And yes, we are taking on Silver, the multi-millionaire Hollywood producer who was recently kicked out of Burbank and decided that Venice is hipper. It doesn’t make sense for Silver to keep the mural after removing it from the wall, without provisions for public access. Could we get the building back? If through our current lawsuit we can prove that the USPS or the PRC failed to follow procedures when disposing of our historic post office, the USPS would have to buy the building back from Silver and re-instate postal services.

Please contact the VNC at secretary@venicenc.org and urge that the motion to move the Biberman mural to the Library be placed on the January VNC Agenda. Then get involved by attending the VNC meeting on January 15 at 7pm at Westminster Elementary School, 1010 Abbot Kinney Blvd.

John Mooney Blows Moonlight Glass in Venice

By Greta Cobar

Venice has always fostered creativity, having drawn and inspired countless artists in endless media for over a hundred years. One such current story of bewildering, shining and colorful beauty is daily unfolding as John Mooney blows and sculpts glass, adding and mixing colors in infinite and never the same variations.

Putting color on canvas, building a castle out of sand, immortalizing a sunset with a camera or putting words on paper can, and often do, produce beautiful creations. But when Mooney puts two hundred pounds of powder in the 2100 degree furnace and draws out a fiery ball of molted glass that he then blows or sculpts into a bowl, a sea creature, or a light fixture, the transformation is one of overwhelming wonder towards the finished product and of admiration and respect for the craftsmanship that is required.

Watching him blow a bowl seemed like a series of thousands of perfectly timed and flawlessly executed movements. “Working with glass helps me become a non-perfectionist, it’s good therapy,” he said. Funny, I guess we are our own worst critics.

It takes hours, sometimes many hours, of an extremely intricate, split-second timely dance to bring to life the splendor of each piece. It also takes talent and consistent practice over a long period of time to master the art of blowing and sculpting glass. Mooney has been at it for 26 consecutive years, but he feels that “the lesson is never over, you have never learned everything.” And so he continues on his path, as if no other path was ever even possible. “The problem is keeping the furnace on,” he said regarding the expense of running his own studio, Moonlight Glass, and having to pay the $500 monthly gas bill to keep the glass molten and ready to play with. “I like the fun and freedom of playing with glass,” he said.

“Venice is cool, it’s the only place to live,” according to Mooney. Originally from Colorado, he spent his first spring break in Venice in 1983, and returned in ’86 after finishing his BA in Philosophy from Pomona College, in Claremont. It was during his last year at Pomona that he got the chance to take a glass-blowing class with renowned glass artist Therman Statom. Once in Venice, he worked with Richard Silver for ten years before building his own furnace and opening his own studio, Moonlight Glass, in 2000.

“Abbot Kinney created Venice to be how we like it, he made it for us,” is how Monney expressed the sense of belonging and the inability to fit in anywhere else that many of us feel towards the little town we call home. “Money is a really powerful thing – but so are people. I’m not going, I’m not gonna sell out,” he said when asked about the latest wave of gentrification taking over the neighborhood surrounding his studio. Located at 705 Hampton Dr., Moonlight Glass is only a stone-throw away from the recently-transformed-into-Rodeo Dr. Abbot Kinney Blvd. “Abbot Kinney would be happy seeing what I do,” Mooney said of his studio and his art.

Venice, Italy, is of course famous for its Murano glass, with a strong tradition going back several centuries. However, the small-studio glass blowing movement, which is different from the factory-like system still operating in Murano, originated right here in the US of A in the 1960s and exploded in the ‘90s and 2000s. It is these small studios, like the one Mooney is operating, that took glass from the decorative, mass-produced mentality still flourishing in Murano and opened the door to self-expression, experimentation, creativity and autonomy.

“I like the freedom – glass is free – there’s no limit to what you can do with glass,” according to Mooney. Not only did he purposely avoid the constricts of other media and of the Italian glass factories, but also those taught by conventional education. After just one glass-blowing class, Mooney proceeded to teach himself the art of glass. “In a school-like setting, people feed off each other and steal each other’s ideas. By not being submerged in art schools, I started fresh with my own ideas,” Mooney said.

And off he goes, to another full day spent blowing glass. His Moonlight Glass studio also serves as his showroom, with over 300 pieces available for admiration and purchase. The selection is almost as wide as the possibilities: tumblers, Betta fish, fish bowls on lit pedestals, his unique candlelit “Moon light bowls”, hanging lights, shot glasses, sea creatures, bowls, vases, and many, many more, each different and distinct like a non-mass-produced piece of art ought to be.

Following the stream of endless possibilities, the glass enthusiast is not limited to admiring or purchasing Mooney’s art pieces, but can also take one of the classes Mooney is teaching out of his studio. That offers not only the experience of working with molten glass next to the 2100 degree furnace, but also of walking away with two of your own original glass pieces of art.

When asked for a quick description of his endeavor, Mooney described it as a “life-long exploration of color and shape through glass and time.” And then he said that he wants to keep it going, because “there’s a lot to explore.”

To view a sample of Mooney’s artwork and find more information about taking a class, visit www.johnmooneyglass.com, call 310-399-0999 or stop by 705 Hampton Dr.