SAT. OCT 3 ~ OPENING CELEBRATION OF NEW VENICE BEACH SKATE PARK

PRESS RELEASE FROM COUNCILMAN ROSENDAHL’S OFFICE

http://www.councilmanrosendahl.com
City Hall (213) 473-7011 West LA
(310) 575-8461 Westchester (310) 568-8772
Contact:  Nate Kaplan-(213) 473-7011 
                             
Rosendahl TO CELEBRATE GRAND OPENING OF VENICE BEACH SKATE PARK

Public Invited
 
Who:            Los Angeles City Councilmember Bill Rosendahl
                        Los Angeles County Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky
                        Jon Mukri, general manager of the Dept. of Rec. and Parks 

                        Gary Lee Moore, City Engineer
                        Geri Lewis, exec. director of Venice Surf and Skateboard Assoc.
                        Jesse Martinez, professional skater
                        Jay Adams, professional skater
                        Tony Alva, professional skater
                                               
When:                   11:00 a.m. Saturday, October 3, 2009

Where:            On beach near the “Graffiti Walls”  and existing skate dance area near Windward Avenue and Ocean Front Walk Venice Beach , CA 90291
                       
*Media parking available at the Venice Beach Basketball Courts

What:              Councilmember Bill Rosendahl will join professional and amateur skaters from around the country to celebrate the grand opening of the long awaited Venice Beach Skate Park .
 
The Venice area is widely credited as the birthplace of modern skateboarding and skaters have long frequented the Ocean Front Walk area.  When the City of Los Angeles renovated Venice Beach in 1999-2001, skaters demanded the City honor that legacy and build an official skate park.  City officials responded, and this weekend a new 16,000 square foot skate facility now joins the many other distinctive attractions that are part of Venice ’s landscape. 
 
Design input from local skaters and skating professionals helped make the Venice Beach Skate Park one of the most challenging arenas for skaters to ride. The facility rivals other skate parks around the world but stands out as one of the only skate parks located on a beach.

The $2.4 million project was paid from a variety of City funding sources secured by Rosendahl and his predecessors:   Quimby Funds, Damson Oil Facility Restoration Funds, Venice Area Surplus Real Property Trust Funds and Capital Improvement Expenditure Programs.

                                                                              ###

WOMAN THREATENED ON 6TH AVE., VENICE

Lisa is an artist/activist who is running as a Green Party candidate in the 2010 State Assemby election

September 16, 2009

I parked on 6th street around 6:30am between California Ave and Santa Clara on the east side of the street in my van.  I was parked there because I was going to have coffee, read a little until Vera Davis opened, and then go inside to use the internet and talk to my friend.  Around 7:45am I heard a loud knock at my side door. I opened the door and found a man in his late 30’s, about 5′8″, stocky build, clean-shaved, dark hair and brown eyes.  He was holding a large cup of coffee.  He looked at me with hatred and said, “There was a time when people used to camp on this street. You’ll be leaving later today.” I said, “What’s your name? My name is Lisa Green.” He said in disgust, “Dave.” 

 He continued to glare at me attempting to intimidate me. He continued, “You do not park here. What do you have to say about that? This street isn’t for campers. Go camp somewhere you belong – not here like property owners.  I ask, “What are you asking me specifically?”  Then I say, “I parked here around 6:30am, and will be going into Vera Davis when it opens. I got here early.”  He said, “No you didn’t. Your windows are fogged which means you’ve been inside the vehicle for awhile, and fogged the windows (actually it wasn’t condensation – it was sea mist from working on the beach everyday).  Then he walks to the front of the van and says that the front is not warm.  I repeat, “I came here at 6:30am. I will be going into Vera Davis when it opens.”   He said, “Then park in front of Vera Davis.”  I say, “You are a very angry person. What’s your name?” He says, “Park in front of Vera Davis [in a louder even angrier voice]. You know bad things happen to people around here that park here. Do you know I have a big dick?” 

I look at him not reacting to his insanity or showing fear, “Oh, a big dick. You sound like a very sick person.”  And he continues, “Yes bad things happen to people here – park somewhere else. Then he leans down to my dog and says looking at him with hate, “bad things happen.”  So I  ask,”What’s your last name sir?”  He looks back at me with a vile hatred, cold, angry, insane eyes. I say, “you’re very troubled and you think you’re brave.”  He says, “no I’m not brave, I’m crazy” [continuing to try to scare me]. I say, “Well you’re not as crazy as I am.  You have made a very bad decision here doing this sir.”  (Meaning I am not going to allow this person to harass and threaten me with sexual abuse, with physical abuse, with animal abuse, etc without reporting him}.  “So what is your last name sir?”  He tells me I can call him “sir”.  He continues to stare at me with hatred.  His attempts at intimidating me are failing and it is making him more upset.  I tell him he’s a very sick person. Psychologically damaged. Very angry. Very weak heart. He should get some help.  He tells me bad things happen here to people’s things too.  I say yet again. “I am going into Vera Davis when it opens.”   He says to park in front of Vera Davis.  He huffs at me, slams my van door which brushes against my shoulder and shuts violently in my face.  Then he storms off,  crosses the street, and heads north on the west side of the block.   I immediately feel it is in my best interest to get my video camera, so I fail to watch him to see if he enters a home directly across from the public street I parked on around 6:30am.  After finding the camera, I grab my note pad, and document the conversation.

It takes me quite a while to recall all of the threats this man, claiming to be “Dave”, made. I remain in my vehicle, deciding instead I’ll run an errand and not leave my dog in the van, while I run into Vera Davis.  Frankly, the dog nor I have any business being threatened or possibly harmed by a psychotic living on that street.  Around 9:30am I drive off. 

Lisa Green

STAKEHOLDERS OF VENICE

A group of Venice stakeholders have formed the Stakeholders of Venice group, an unincorporated association, to address urgent community issues and the need for fair and honest representation in the Venice Neighborhood Council (VNC). 

Venice stakeholders as defined by VNC. 

Stakeholders of Venice Blog

VNC RECALL PETITION

A petition has been started by Rick Selan of Venice Neighborhood Activists Coalition (VNAC) to recall those officers of the Venice Neighborhood Council (VNC) who refuse to address grievances, and ethics violations, filed against the VNC by concerned Venice stakeholders. 

If you are a Venice stakeholder and agree with this petition, please add your signature by September 15, 2009 and tell your neighbors and friends!.

VNC RECALL

B. Recall: Recall is the procedure by which Voting Members may remove an elected Officer. Any Voting Member may put forth a Recall petition by presenting a petition to the Secretary with no less than two-hundred (200) signatures of Voting Members supporting the motion.

1. Receipt of this completed petition by the Secretary shall trigger this item being scheduled as an action item on the Agenda at a separate Election Meeting to be held not less than thirty (30) days nor more than ninety (90) days following receipt of the completed petition. Notice of the Recall petition, including the name of the Officer subject to Recall, shall be made in all public meeting notices and announcements for the upcoming meeting at which the Recall shall be voted on.

2.  Removal of the Officer by Recall requires a three-quarters (3/4) majority vote of the Voting Members present and voting at the Election Meeting, not to be less than two-hundred (200) votes in favor of the Recall.

Based on the fact that the VNC Executive Officers continue a grievance policy and ethics violations permitting the VNC Rules and Elections (Grievance) Chair to rule unilaterally on grievances filed against himself, the VNC Grievance Chair, and deny these grievances as non-actionable based on prejudice; and that according to former VNC Member Dexter O’Connell, the appointed VNC Parliamentarian “bamboozled” the grievance process causing an elected member to resign; my signature below following the procedure above requests a recall election of VNC President Mike Newhouse, VNC Vice President Linda Lucks, VNC Secretary Joe Murphy, VNC Treasurer Hugh Harrison, VNC Outreach Officer Mark Saltzberg, Communication Officer Sean Kelly, LUPC Chair Challis Macpherson, Rules and Election Chair Ira Koslow and appointed Parliamentarian Ivan Spiegel.”

Go here to add your signature: http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/RECALL_VNC

If you would like to sign a paper petition and/or collect signatures, please contact Rick Selan ASAP!  THANKS!

CHALLENGE TO PORTLAND’S [HOMELESS] CAMPING BAN MOVES FORWARD

Homeless Encampment in Oregon called "Dignity Village"

 by James Mayer, The Oregonian  Tuesday August 04, 2009, 5:19 PM

A federal judge has dismissed some claims in a lawsuit challenging Portland’s anti-camping ordinance, but allowed others to continue. The ruling by U.S. District Judge Ann Aiken means the case stays alive. Aiken, in ruling on the city’s motion to dismiss the lawsuit, rejected claims that the ordinance violated the plaintiffs’ right to travel, but allowed the claim that the ordinance violated their constitutional right against cruel or unusual punishment.

The suit seeks suspension of the city’s anti-camping ordinance that prohibits camping on any public property or right-of-way and an ordinance that prohibits setting up any kind of structure on public property without a permit. The class-action suit was filed in U.S. District Court in Portland by the Oregon Law Center, a nonprofit legal aid organization, on behalf of four homeless Portlanders and “all others similarly situated.”

The suit alleges that police officers have arbitrarily moved homeless people from place to place, excluded them from parks and cited them for camping and trespassing, even though they can’t obtain housing or adequate shelter in Portland. They also have been cited by police for gathering their belongings under tarps and in bike trailers.

 ”Punishing homeless people for sleeping outside is placing the burden of the lack of sufficient housing squarely on the shoulders of those who can do the least to remedy this problem,” the suit says.

The city argues that the ordinances are aimed at conduct and not the status of being homeless, but the judge ruled that the plaintiffs could present evidence that the city has criminalized being homeless, citing a U.S Supreme Court decision that threw out a Los Angeles ordinance that made it a crime to be a drug addict.

The judge also allowed the plaintiffs to present evidence that the city violated their right to equal protection of the law in singling out homeless people. The judge rejected a claim that the ordinance violated the plaintiffs’ right to travel to and around Portland, noting that the city has no policy or program of excluding homeless people from certain areas.

James Mayer:  jimmayer@news.oregonian.com

FREE SPEECH IS A RIGHT NOT A LOTTERY PRIZE!

PRESS RELEASE  ~  FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:  Date: 8/03/09

 Venice Beach Boardwalk Coalition (VBBC) challenges City of Los Angeles Permit/Lottery on Venice Boardwalk

On June 24, 2009, Seattle Center’s permit regulations, imposed on street performers, were overturned in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals by an 11 member “en banc” panel of judges, including Judge Harry Pregerson, father of Judge Dean Pregerson, who, the City of Los Angeles claims, presided over the creation of the current LAMC 42.15 ordinance that regulates the Free Speech Zone (FSZ) on the west side of Venice Boardwalk.

 Seattle’s law, requiring a permit to engage in [individual] speech: “constitutes a dramatic departure from our national heritage and constitutional tradition,” according to Judge Marsha Berzon, writing for the majority opinion. Additionally, the City of Seattle required free expressionists (artists, performers, politico’s, etc) to wear badges, refrain from soliciting gratuities, stay away from captive audience and work only in designated sites. Similarly, in the Venice Boardwalk FSZ, the City of Los Angeles requires free expressionists to purchase a permit and enter a lottery; just to have a chance to win an opportunity to exercise their First Amendment Free Speech rights, in city specified “designated spaces” in the FSZ, in accordance with city rules, including wearing badges.

VBBC free expressionists are demanding that the City of Los Angeles rescind the unconstitutional permit/ lottery and remove all “unprotected” retail commercial vending operating under the current LAMC 42.15.  As Judge Marsha Berzon writes: “It is our belief that the protections afforded by the First Amendment are nowhere stronger than in streets & parks, both categorized for First Amendment purposes as traditional public fora. In such fora, the government’s right to limit expressive activity is sharply circumscribed. Among traditional public fora, parks [such as Venice Beach], are especially important locales for communication among the citizenry, as they have immemorially been held in trust for the use of public, and have been used for purposes of assembly, communicating thoughts between citizens, and discussing public questions.”  Furthermore, VBBC claims that these important protections should not be subverted to allow the “unprotected” retail commercial vending that currently proliferates in the FSZ, driving out expressionists such as artists, activists, performers, politicos and others with a real “protected” message.

For more information on this topic, or to schedule an interview with Venice Beach Boardwalk Coalition spokesperson, Lisa Green and other free expressionists, please call 310 391-7686 or email at lisaaverde@yahoo.com. If you publish or use this information please inform us so we can monitor, and send you additional pertinent information to your community.

Contact: Lisa Green   ~  Cell: 310/391-7686  Email

# # #

CD11 OFFICIALS CAUGHT WITH EGG ON FACE

 

A Letter from Rick Selan re: CD11 “cover up” of Who Authorized the “6ft” Parking Signs on 7th Avenue and Response from DOT

Dear CD 11 Deputy Arturo Pina and CD 11 Special Deputy Mark Grant,

It appears your office seemed to “cover up”,  from a significant number in the Oakwood community letters Mr. Pina wrote… regarding the fact that it was CD11 that confirmed to the Department of Transportation (DOT) the authorization of these “No Vehicles 6 feet or more in height” on 7th Ave. between Broadway and California Ave.

According to the Department of Transportation’s log per a telephone conversation, this advocate was informed it was Oakwood Senior Lead Officer Teresa Skinner who made the order to DOT.

Why couldn’t CD11 be direct rather than engage in “cover up” with the low income under represented minorities who live in Oakwood and those
who advocate on their behalf?  Your office discussed these signs with a part of the community on June 12, 2009 but not with the the other part of the Oakwood community.

This is what I meant by childish play or middle school behavior in a previous communications. You share with some but not the others. Not sharing with all creates tension.

I am glad DOT finally included documents today so the community can see there was a history of communications with some but not with the low income under represented minorities who are also constituents living in the Oakwood community.   Inclusion is what is missing in this community as too many are out for their own self interests. Your office too often calls meetings at the last minute making participation difficult for many.  LAUSD shares this same bad habit.

If the entire community had this information before the signs went up without notice just like the T-Mobile cell tower that your office lets sit at Oakwood Park, a meeting might have taken place so the entire community might have been given the opportunity to share their comments about signs and cell towers.  Many of these individuals who live in the Oakwood Community and care about their neighborhood have lived in Oakwood for seven or eight decades. Many are elderly and are still afraid, remembering events before Civil Rights. Do you blame these elderly as they observe the prejudice that still goes on in Oakwood today ?

Some of these individuals are on probation or parole. These were youth who dropped out of high school because of the state of our schools and gang unrest since Prop 13.  These individuals, some approaching fifty, were denied “optimal” intervention or a Success Team or any type of help at all when they were in school.

There are a specific group from Venice 2000 who have a court injunction to stay away from Oakwood park.   Many of these individuals are much older and no longer live in the Community.  Venice 2000, like Mark Twain, have had their downs and their ups but history is history.  Venice 2000 today is a non-profit organization and at the same time are forced to live with their past at Oakwood Park.   Intergenerational groups, job centers, individualized tutoring sites in math and reading, and communications skill training needs to be established in the worse way in this community.

Two way respect goes a long way. For too long has VNC and CD 11, and other local organizations have attempted to deny the whole community the facts rather than communicate the facts to reach consensus. Our schools that operate in this mode fail; the schools with communication succeed. One way communication leads to chaos; two way communication heals to reach consensus.

CD11 prefers to shy away from intervention when these services involve your office. This is sad. Your office might rethink policy. Bring in LA Human Relations as they have helped out so much in the past.

The community now has a fair playing field regarding these signs as the facts are on the table. Kudos to Mohammad Blorfroshan and the records department at the LA Department of Transportation for sharing the facts.

 Peace.

In unity for accountability,

Rick Selan

 - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - -

Dear Mr. Selan,

 

I was able to authorize the installation of the “No Vehicles 6 feet or more in height” parking restriction on the west side of 7th Av between Broadway and California Av after I confirmed with the Council Office that the California Coastal Commission does not object to posting of height restriction parking signs (see attached e-mail).

 

According to the Los Angeles Municipal Code, Section 80.69 (d), Limitation for Vehicles Six Feet or More in Height, “Whenever authorized signs are in place giving notice thereof, it shall be unlawful for any person to park or stand a vehicle more than six feet in height, including any load thereon, within 100 feet of an intersection.”

 

This parking restriction only applies to within 100 feet of an intersection and the purpose is to improve visibility of approaching traffic for motorists exiting from the side street at an intersection. 

 

I was able to apply this parking restriction to the west side of 7th Av between Broadway and California Av because there are numerous short blocks with many side streets at this segment (Broadway, Broadway Ct, Westminster Av, San Juan Av, San Juan Ct and California Av). 

 

I cannot apply the same parking restriction to 5th Av because that street has long blocks.  If I authorize the installation of this parking restriction on 5th Av, it would apply only to the first 100 feet segment of 5th Av at the intersection with a side street.  For example, on 5th Av between Rose Av and Sunset Av, which is approximately 730 feet long, the posted height limit parking restriction would apply to 100 feet portion south of Rose Av and 100 feet portion north of Sunset Av, while large vehicles can still park at the remaining segment of 5th Av.  

 

Let me know if you have any questions.

Sincerely,

Mohammad Blorfroshan

Transportation Engineer

Western District Office

Department of Transportation

Tel: (310) 575-8138

Fax: (310) 575-8143

9th CIRCUIT OVERTURNS SEATTLE CENTER PERFORMERS’ PERMIT LAW

Seattle’s street artists get a green light Ken Lambert / The Seattle Times 

The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals today struck down curbs imposed by the city on those performing at the Seattle Center.

A federal appeals court strikes down the city’s curbs on performers.  By Carol J. Williams June 25, 2009

Just in time for the summer tourist throngs, mimes, musicians and balloon-animal shapers have been newly empowered to bring their entertainments and tip jars to public parks. In a ruling with potentially wide implications for street artists throughout the West, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals on Wednesday struck down curbs imposed by Seattle on those performing at the popular Seattle Center, home of the landmark Space Needle.

Magic Mike wins 9th Circuit Court of Appeals Case 2009

Michael “Magic Mike” Berger, a busker who sculpted balloon figures and dazzled children with sleight-of-hand tricks, prevailed in his seven-year challenge of the constitutionality of Seattle’s 2002 rules regulating street performers. The city had required them to obtain permits, wear badges, refrain from soliciting gratuities, stay away from “captive audiences” and work only within designated sites. By contrast, Los Angeles city officials make little effort to rein in the street artists who abound at tourist venues like Venice Beach and the Hollywood Walk of Fame. One local move, a 2001 ordinance restricting street banners in Santa Monica, drew a court challenge but has since been amended. In the decision by an 11-member en banc panel of the appeals court, a majority rejected Seattle’s argument that the rules were appropriate limits on “time, place and manner,” rather than an infringement on free speech.

“I think there’s going to have to be a reevaluation by many cities, certainly in the 9th Circuit and perhaps across the country, on the validity of various laws that restrict people from speaking in public and performing in public on sidewalks and parks,” said Elena Luisa Garella, Berger’s lawyer.

Constitutional law professor Carl Tobias of the University of Richmond agreed the ruling could tie the hands of officials trying to control the proliferation of street artists but predicted it would be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. Berger, 61, was in Costa Rica when the ruling was announced but sent an e-mail proclaiming victory.

 ”The city has been trying to turn Seattle Center into a government-controlled place that is very convenient for commercial interests and hostile to freedom and free speech,” he wrote, concluding that “the city needs to wake up and read the Constitution.”

Seattle officials suspended the restrictions after a federal judge ruled for Berger in 2005. The city appealed to the 9th Circuit, where a three-judge panel last year upheld the busker rules as permissible safety and order considerations. Assistant City Atty. Gary Keese said the city was still reviewing the 114-page en banc ruling and had yet to consider whether to drop the rules or seek Supreme Court review.

Four 9th Circuit judges, including Chief Judge Alex Kozinski, dissented from Wednesday’s opinion. Kozinski observed that the city was merely imposing “some basic rules, to ensure the safety and convenience” of the 12 million annual visitors to the Seattle Center. Writing for the majority, Judge Marsha S. Berzon, a President Clinton appointee, said that “a law requiring a permit to engage in [individual] speech constitutes a dramatic departure from our national heritage and constitutional tradition.” She referred repeatedly to a 2002 Supreme Court decision applying the same 1st Amendment protections to Jehovah’s Witnesses who take their religious messages door-to-door.   Carol.williams@latimes.com

NOPD WINS THE DAY AT THE COASTAL COMMISSION HEARING ON JUNE 11, 2009

  

 In spite of a staff report favoring the proposed Overnight Parking Districts (OPDs) in Venice, the Coastal Commission voted almost unanimously “No” to the proposal at a hearing held in the Marina Del Rey Hotel.  The results of the vote were greeted by applause by the many NOPD supporters who showed up at 8:00am on Thursday, June 11, 2009 to pack the hearing room. Speakers against the OPDs outnumbered the opposition by about 10 to 1. The Coastal Commissioners sat patiently listening to the heartfelt 2 minute speeches given by Venice residents who want to keep our streets free of permit parking.

 

 Councilman, Bill Rosendahl, tried, in vain, to compare Venice to Santa Monica and Malibu, both cities who have achieved permit parking without Coastal Commission permission. However, the Commissioners were not convinced and responded by stating that the RV/homeless parking in Venice was a social issue that needed to be addressed by the City of Los Angeles, not the Coastal Commission.

Opponents of the OPDs left the hearing in a jubilant mood. Truly a victory for the “little people” – one which will resound through Venice for weeks and months to come!

 

IMPORTANT OPD COASTAL COMMISSION MEETING ~ JUNE 11, 2009

“ART RV”        HOMELESS SENIOR LIVING IN RV

THE BATTLE FOR THE STREETS OF VENICE

 The Venice Overnight Permit Districts (OPDs) will go before the California Coastal Commission at their June meeting.

WHEN: Coastal Commission meeting is scheduled for June 11

WHERE: Marina del Rey Hotel 13534 Bali Way Marina del Rey, CA 90292

WHAT YOU CAN DO TO HELP OPPOSE OPDs IN VENICE AT THE JUNE COASTAL COMMISSION MEETING:

1) Mail a letter to each Coastal Commissioner stating that you oppose overnight permit parking in Venice. The list of Commissioners can be found at: http://www.coastal.ca.gov/roster.html

2 ). Remember to sign, print your name and address on letters.

3) Bring your 12 letters (to the 12 commissioners) to 2210 Lincoln Blvd, room #15 in Venice. Postage will be paid and copies sent the CCC staff. The first mailing deadline is May 15, Friday.

4) Call Councilperson Bill Rosendahl (213)-473-7011 or email him at councilman.rosendahl@lacity.org to let him know you do not want OPDs in Venice!

5) Attend the June Coastal Commission meeting.

COASTAL COMMISSION BACKGROUND INFORMATION: See the February 4, 2009 California Coastal commission staff report/appeals regarding the Venice OPDs at http://documents.coastal.ca.gov/reports/2009/2/W22a-s-2-2009.pdf

VENICE FORUM ON OPD ELECTION RESULTS

If you want to check out local opinions about the February 21 OPD Election go to Venice Forum at http://www.venicenc.org/node/1154 - stayed tuned for more info about the post-election meeting that took place on March 25.  If you were there, let us know what happened.  Thanks.

We’d love to hear from you!  Please register with WordPress.com and let us know what you’re thinking!

All the best,

SOV