Bill Rosendahl Responds to Third Ave Encampment Questions

Los Angeles City Councilman Bill Rosendahl responds to questions over the 3rd Avenue homeless encampment in Venice.

Los Angeles City Councilman Bill Rosendahl is responding to questions over the 3rd Avenue homeless encampment in Venice. It can be found here and is included below in its entirety:

Dear Friends,

As many of you know, we have a crisis of homelessness in this nation, and it is particularly acute in Los Angeles and in Venice.  In recent weeks, with encampments in Venice growing, the community dialogue has become heated.  Some people have spread distorted or false information, and then demanded action based upon such misinformation, complicating the City’s efforts to find solutions to our shared problems.

In order to clear the air, share accurate information, and shed some light, my staff has compiled a FAQ (frequently asked questions) about the situation:

What is going on with the encampments in Venice?

Over the past year, encampments of people in bedrolls, tents, or cardboard boxes began to proliferate in Venice, mostly along Ocean Front Walk.  Many of the people were down on their luck, and homeless.  Fortunately, many of them availed themselves of the Emergency Winter Shelter program and connected with social service programs. Others were younger transients, living “off the grid” and on the streets.  Still others suffered from alcoholism, addiction, or mental illness; many refused social services that provide housing and treatment.

In February, when the Los Angeles Police Department and the Department of Recreation & Parks began enforcing a curfew at Venice Beach, a number of encampments began springing up on or around Third Avenue in Venice, mostly between Sunset and Rose Avenues.  A few encampments have recently emerged on the median of Venice Boulevard, near the Abbot Kinney Memorial Library.

The City has sought to strike a balanced approach: provide help to those who need and want it – and to enforce all applicable laws to protect quality of life.

What is the City doing about the encampments?

Despite the claims of certain activists, the City has taken consistent, strong and multiple measures to deal with the encampments.  We have stepped up law enforcement with the LAPD.  We have increased street cleanings with the Bureau of Street Services and other agencies.  We have increased social services through People Assisting the Homeless and the Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority (LAHSA).

What has LAPD done?

Under the supervision of Captain Jon Peters and his staff, the LAPD’s approach has been tough but measured, aggressive yet fair.  Since February, officers have made more than 100 arrests for a variety of offenses, from outstanding warrants to drug charges to violent crime.  LAPD is working closely with city prosecutors to ensure cases are as strong as possible to stand up in court.

What sort of clean-ups have been conducted?

The City has directed multiple and repeated clean-ups of the Third Avenue area, removing trash and abandoned materials, disposing of and cleaning up after human waste, and removing bulky item materials.  The most recent large-scale clean-up was conducted Friday, April 27.  Further clean-ups will happen, and on a regular basis.

So, why are so many people still sleeping on Third Avenue, and why is it such a mess?

Due to two court cases, the Jones case and the Lavan case, the City’s ability to enforce its laws has been significantly restricted:

On October 15, 2007, the City entered into a legally binding settlement, agreeing not to enforce the law prohibiting sleeping on the streets, between the hours of 9 p.m. and 6 a.m. until it builds 1,250 units of permanent supportive housing.  The City entered this agreement after the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, in a case brought by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the National Lawyers Guild (Jones v. City of Los Angeles), found that the law against sleeping on the streets amounted to cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the 8th Amendment, noting there were thousands more homeless people in L.A. County than there were shelter beds.  This applies citywide, meaning it is currently lawful for people to sleep on the sidewalks at night.

In a separate case, Lavan v. City of Los Angeles, last year, ACLU attorney Carol Sobel, the Los Angeles Community Action Network, and the Los Angeles Catholic Worker obtained a restraining order, prohibiting the City from seizing or destroying property from homeless camps in downtown’s Skid Row.  This means the City can only remove abandoned property.  If someone claims that items in the streets are their personal belongings, the City cannot remove those items without risk of legal repercussions.  The City is currently appealing this decision.

I heard the City has built enough beds to satisfy the Jones settlement and you can make it illegal to sleep on the streets again. True or false?

That is not true — yet.  The settlement says the City “will keep this policy in effect and operate according to this policy until an additional 1250 units of permanent supportive housing are constructed within the City of Los Angeles, at least 50 per cent of which are located in Skid Row and/or greater downtown Los Angeles.”  According to the Los Angeles Housing Department, the City needs to construct several hundred more units before it meets the requirements of the settlement.

The Lavan case does not apply in Venice, so why are the streets not cleaned up?

Many of the same people who won the Lavan injunction downtown are seeking to make it apply citywide, and are preparing legal action against the City to accomplish that.  Overly aggressive action could backfire, and make it harder to clean up encampments.  The City Attorney’s office is strongly cautioning Bureau of Street Services to proceed carefully, and has crafted guidelines and a protocol to make sure clean-ups in Venice and other areas of the City do not have unforeseen legal complications, including a citywide injunction against removing encampments.

So, what CAN the City do?

The LAPD can and will continue to enforce existing laws.  Sleeping on the sidewalks is not permitted during the day. Blocking the sidewalks and impeding the public right of way is not permitted.

The City will also conduct periodic clean-ups of the encampment areas, using a protocol being devised by the City Attorney’s office.  We will have more flexibility in removing materials from or near encampments if those sleeping on the streets have a safe and secure place to store their belongings.

I am also pleased to report that County Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky has agreed to help assign teams of personnel from the Department of Mental Health to work with local social service providers to assist those living in encampments.  A similar outreach program in Westchester Park a few weeks ago was very successful.

Why is the City allowing people to operate feeding programs on Venice Beach?

The Ninth Circuit Court has ruled that people or organizations have a First Amendment right to distribute free food. During litigation over the assignment and regulation of public space on Venice Beach’s Ocean Front Walk, the court insisted that the City set aside two spaces on Ocean Front Walk for food distribution.  We are legally required to do that, and I support programs that feed hungry people during one of the worst economic recessions in our nation’s history.

What has the Councilman done about homelessness?

Since taking office in 2005, finding solutions to homelessness has been my passion.  Some of my specific actions include:

  • Securing funds to hire PATH, which has found permanent housing for more than 30 individuals who were living in their cars or RVs in Venice.
  • Securing funding last year for the only early emergency winter shelter program in the county. Expanded the number of beds, setting some aside especially for homeless youth.
  • Providing $400,000 in federal block grant monies so Upward Bound House could convert a motel on the Culver City/Mar Vista border into housing for homeless families.
  • Supporting New Directions, Inc. in converting a house in Del Rey into a home for returning veterans of Iraq and Aghanistan.
  • Joining Santa Monica Councilman Bobby Shriver in repeatedly lobbying the VA and the federal government to step up efforts to house homeless vets on the VA’s West LA campus.
  • Supporting and securing nearly $1 million in federal block grant funds for the 1736 Family Crisis Center, which operates a youth shelter project for at-risk, runaway, and homeless adolescents.
  • Supporting an affordable senior housing project in Del Rey, being built by developer Tom Safran.
  • Supporting, allocating funds to, and finding a location for Stand up for Kids, which provides food, clothing and support to runaway and homeless young people.
  • Securing $750,000 for Venice Community Housing Corporation’s permanent supportive housing facility at 15 Horizon.

What else do you plan on doing about homelessness?

I am currently working with LAHSA and civic-minded local residents to identify a location and funding for an emergency transitional housing facility on the Westside.  I am also encouraging proposals from private and non-profit developers to build permanent supportive or affordable housing in the 11th District.

I keep hearing that the LAPD feels there is much more they can do to make our neighborhoods cleaner and safer and crack down on the encampments – but that you are forbidding them from doing so.

This is absolutely, patently false – and has been refuted, repeatedly, by Chief Charlie Beck and Captain Peters.  My office and I vigorously support and encourage the LAPD to enforce the law.  Captain Peters and I are in contact almost daily (and sometimes several times per day).  We consider each other to be partners.  I support him, his team, and his smart, measured enforcement of the law.  Since February, LAPD has made more than 100 arrests or citations on Third Avenue.  I’ve fought for more resources and flexibility for Captain Peters and his team, and he and Chief Beck will confirm that.

Is there anything else the public can do to help the LAPD?

Yes.  Promptly reporting all crime to the LAPD is paramount.  Property owners near encampments can also work with LAPD and install security cameras with recording devices.  LAPD is also strongly encouraging residents to leave the enforcement to the LAPD and not take vigilante action.

What can you say about the angry feelings between Venetians over this issue?

We need less finger-pointing, less anger, and more of a cooperative spirit of good will.  We cannot shout or accuse our way out of a problem; we need to work together, thoughtfully, as neighbors with a desire for a better community.

Addressing this problem requires a balanced approach.  Some people insist we need more law enforcement.  Others demand social services.  We need both.  We must secure public safety and preserve neighborhood quality of life – while respecting the law and the rights of people who do not have homes.  We must help homeless people who need and want help – without enabling homelessness itself.

The question should not be: should we allow people to sleep on the streets?  The question must be: how do we provide people housing, services, and shelter so no one has cause to sleep on the street?



Another WorldView May 04, 2012 at 10:59 PM
"If what you seek is anarchy and lawlessness you're in the wrong place." That is suggested nowhere in any of my writtings, and so is an obvious canard and a Non-Sequitor. " There are 50 residences within eye and ear shot of the 3rd encampment - so no, it's not an OK place to set up a homeless camp." There is no right to have the UnHoused hidden from your view or hearing, nor anyone else's. A camp would be a 24 hr fixture, complete with services - and aside from David Busch's now-seized toilet, that has never been in evidence there on 3rd street. "I can see and hear everything that goes on down there." Sounds like your afffluenza has given you an awful lot of free-time. Perhaps you could take up a less damning and destructive hobby. "The sound of someone vomiting at 3 am on a nightly basis is not a pleasant sound." Granted, but not one you are entitled to be shielded from, any more than the people who live near our city's many bars and restaurants are. That doesn't sound like a 'breach of the peace' or a violation of any other noise ordinance, either. "3. No update on where the 5 gallon bucket of shit gets dumped?" When siezed by police, I would guess an evidence locker - otherwise it appears to have been disposed of in sanitary fashion, at all other times. You have no lurid Bawston Dawna headlines to point to, proving otherwise, do you? "4. [snip]" Housed people commit crimes too, are you prepared to be punished collectively with all of them?
Another WorldView May 04, 2012 at 11:17 PM
"5. No roll slowing necessary." Actually there is. Show your face in public, so that the rest of Venice can find out who's been claiming their neighborhood, and mistating their feelings, then you can roll wherever that takes you... "The police have finally cleared 3rd street and are committed to cleaning it as often as necessary" The police have many legal actions pending against them for their abuse and persecution of the UnHoused. So until we have a jury verdict on those matters, don't count your chickens before your OPD's have hatched. " - so it seems that the people have spoken" I don't see more than a few politically-connected and apparently-influential loudmouths talking, so far. But politicians are a cowardly and craven lot by-and- large, and Bill doesn't do much to shake that notion, or distinguish himself, in that regard. "and the city has acted. No camping in Venice." The city has paid through-the-nose (with your tax money) for such actions in the past, and I suspect they will continue doing so in the future. Camping and sleeping on the sidewalk are not synonyms. Also, based on my bike ride last night, your reports of 3rd St.'s demise are 'greatly exaggerated'.
Another WorldView May 04, 2012 at 11:32 PM
Wow, sounds like you're making the case for "Self-deportation". "Ethnic cleanisng" is in the eye of the beholder apparently.
Another WorldView May 04, 2012 at 11:39 PM
Notice - Typing mistake. Suspect and vehicle were located on the morning of May 2nd, not the 5th.
Another WorldView May 04, 2012 at 11:49 PM
BTW "concernedneighbor" Venice is already clean and safe. What it is not, is a petrie dish, for you and Mr. Ryavec to conduct your social engineering experiments. If you hate Venice so much, go somewhere else. But don' t think that the majority of Venitians are going to stand b,y while you attack members of the community based on your petty vendettas, all in the name of greater profit for real estate speculators. Venice has always had its fair share of the UnHoused, going back to at least 1975. 'I knew Sonny Zorro - and you sir are no Sonny Zorro!'
Another WorldView May 05, 2012 at 03:13 AM
In keeping with the principles of Non-Violence, I have to have empathy for you. But you're really pushing it here. You don't watch WWII movies on TV and say, " Great...the Nazis are cast as the bad guys again..." , too, do you? For our Yugoslavian history majors - it was the Socialist partisans that fought the Nazis, and the Croats and Bosnians who murdered the Jewish population with a relish that even hardened SS often found off-putting. I needn't resort to tying in the Slovenians, when you write stuff like the above.
ralph bellamy May 05, 2012 at 08:10 AM
Hi Worldview - First, it is worth noting that there are probably not more than half a dozen people following this thread...if that many...still, truth is worth the telling...it has an intrinsic value... "Sloth" is not listed as a sin in the Bible, but "the slothful man" IS contrasted with "The righteous man" in Proverbs 15:19 and with "the diligent man" in Pr.12:27 &C. Similarly, "gluttony" is not listed as a sin in the Bible, but is spoken of derogatorily in a handful of verses (Dt.21:20, Pr.23:21, &C.). It is noteworthy also that Jesus was called "a glutton" by his detractors...just as Venice's homeless are so-called by our hypocritical "concerned neighbor" (Ironically, and tellingly, Jesus said that a man's "neighbor" was the one who fed him when he was hungry, clothed him when he was naked, and saw to his health and well-being.) These are not formal sins, but they are undesirable character traits in the view of Scripture. What is more relevant, however, is that our "neighbor" doesn't really care about these traits - probably both are found in his character. Rather, he cites them in a vain attempt to deflect the validity of the actual sins laid to his charge in my initial post, and to persuade himself that he will not be called to account by God regarding them. (continued)
ralph bellamy May 05, 2012 at 08:12 AM
Response to "Worldview" - part 2 In fact, it is all too obvious that he does not really believe in God, for if he did he would be in fear of His judgement - and clearly he is not. Proverbs (29:9) states : "When thou contendest with a fool, whether thou rage or laugh, there is no peace" and further instructs us to "Go from the presence of a fool when thou detectest not the lips of wisdom"(14:7). And how are we to recognize a fool? By his words (Eccl.5:3). They soon give him away. Let us leave our "neighbor" to his real "concern" - his status and his position. " 'Vengeance is MINE...I WILL repay' saith The Lord". Roman's 12:19 :-)
Mark Ryavec May 05, 2012 at 08:51 PM
David, You really don't have a clue about the events of that period, do you? My uncle, a UMASS Amherst poli-sci prof, was in Ljubljana, the capital of Slovenia, when the war broke out, re-learning the language he'd known as a child. And I have scores of cousins there, in Ljubljana and elsewhere. This was a hard fought engagement with 72 minor and major armed conflicts during the war. Yugoslav Air Force MiGs strafed military and civilian targets regularly and bombed several buildings and the runway at Bernik International airport to put it out of service. According to rough estimates, the Yugoslav Army had 44 casualties and 146 wounded, and the Slovenian side 19 casualties and 182 wounded. 12 foreign citizens were killed. The situation was clearly dicey for several days, with the Yugoslav Army having a huge advantage in the number of men under arms and in tanks, planes, heavy weapons, etc. My uncle was lucky to get the last train out about mid-point in the conflict. If you would like to learn more, you might look at http://www.slovenija2001.gov.si/10years/path/war/. And my uncle has written a personal account of being in Ljubljana as the war unfolded all around him, which I'd be happy to share with you. The reason for writing all this is that I had good reason to urge the American government to intervene diplomatically to back the Yugoslav Army off and to support Slovenia's independence. In similar circumstances, I think you'd do the same. Mark
ralph bellamy May 06, 2012 at 06:32 AM
No, in fact the situation in Venice is EXACTLY comparable to the mindset and spiritual evil of the Nazis AND the dehumanizing attitude underlying ethnic cleansing. And just so you know, YOU don't get to decide who has won or lost an argument in which you are a partisan...that decision rests with each individual who reads and follows the argument. Further, no one is "bringing religion into it". Your decision to deny God's omnipresence - including His presence IN this circumstance - in no way changes the REALITY of His presence, and we are simply acknowledging that fact. But I agree with one thing you are saying. I am impressed with Mark's activities...impressed with the pure dark evil and inhumanity he represents. Stay glib...while you can. Keep your eyes open. God moves in mysterious ways, His wonders to perform.
concernedneighbor May 07, 2012 at 03:39 AM
Save it worldview. Nobody is 'cleansing' anything and nobody is conducting social experiments. I want PEOPLE (all people) in HOUSES and not on the street. I fully support programs that help people transition off the streets.
concernedneighbor May 07, 2012 at 03:45 AM
Ralph - programs that enable people to stay on the streets are more evil and dehumanizing than programs designed to help them transition off of the street. Nobody should have to live on a sidewalk. Let's work together to make sure that the City funds programs and shelters that help people transition off of the street.
ralph bellamy May 07, 2012 at 06:58 AM
That's a noble ambition, but until those programs and shelters are in place, there remain 40,000 people on the streets of Los Angeles (including 10,000 veterans) for whom no off-street housing exists. Criminalizing them, persecuting them, stealing their meager possessions and cash, demonizing them, lying about them, victimizing them and hating them are not only NOT noble actions, they are utterly evil actions - committed by loveless, mean spirited and despicable people - and God has no intention of letting those people slide. "As ye sew, so shall ye reap". (Jesus said that - among others - he that hath an ear, let him hear)
concernedneighbor May 07, 2012 at 06:38 PM
Ralph - stop being crazy. Your polarizing views and threats of eternal damnation take away from the the important view points you bring to the conversation. There's closer to 6,000 people actually living on the street. I will donate time, money, and any thing else needed to help build shelters and programs that help people truly in need transition off of the street (and I'm sure many of the people you consider 'haters' would as well). Tell me where and when and I'll be there with a hammer and a checkbook. Just because people want homeless folks in a home instead of on the sleeping on the street doesn't mean we're nazis. Yes - homeless folks get lumped into one big group. Some of the 'unhoused' are amazingly smart and wonderful people - but some are drunks and criminals - you can not deny that fact. Both sides could show a little more empathy and understanding towards the other sides position. We shouldn't be calling each other names and painting each other with broad strokes - we should be working together to ensure that the city funds programs that help people transition off of the streets. Yes - it's a noble ambition and will take time/effort/money - but we have to start somewhere.
Another WorldView May 07, 2012 at 10:56 PM
"Worldview - are you high? " - No, but that seems to be a stand-by Ad Hominem for you, when you've nothing intelligent to respond with. "The housed are committing crimes on the 'unhoused'? [snip] I haven't seen any info about the skateboard victims being a Police Cadet and a hooker - is that a figment of your imagination?" No it is not. I did some ACTUAL investigation down on 3rd St, and spoke to eyewitnesses. This "Jason" character, whom I suppose you must be already familiar with, sharing a penchant for putches as you do, lives on Rose. He is an alcoholic, who directs his rage at the UnHoused, something else you seem to share with him. "Were the two homeless folks that got in a fight over a bottle of vodka that ending up in a stabbing also undercover cops?" Not that I'm aware, but the police have been known to use the members of the UnHoused population as informants at times, and the distance between snitch and 'Agent Provocateur', is a short slide down the slippery slope. But we don't believe in collective punishment here in California, so your point is moot. Stabbing people (except perhaps in self-defense) is a crime. Being and continuing to live UnHoused is not.
Venice Concerns May 07, 2012 at 11:01 PM
When discussion has devolved into the personal and into dehumanizing a segment of the population like it seems to have here, then it seems there is little chance of sustainable solutions."Facts" based not on facts and data only lead to fear and loathing in this case. We have been seeing this here. Over the years a group of people are being forced from one area of Venice to another while another group cheers each occurrence. Mark Ryavec with his Venice Stakeholder Association advocates by bullying our city officials and spreading fear among residents. No matter how much he is lately saying he is for providing services for the homeless, none of his "solutions" offer that and any proposal suggested that included it he did his utmost to squelch. He did it with the RVs and the Streets to Homes program, those that didn't leave, left their RVS and turned to the beach. He pressured the City to disperse the OFW homeless out of there and he sent them to Rose and 3rd. Now he is working his strategy there. Where will they go next and will Mark Ryavec run to rescue that area to push the homeless out of a place he forced them to? I think that Venice should be looking for real solutions to solving homelessness not just making Venice clean. Mark Ryavec, your plan is not working and it will not work. Time to talk with the rest of Venice who are at least searching for solutions. And in the meantime, offer services to the homeless; you never know who might want to come off the streets.
Another WorldView May 07, 2012 at 11:02 PM
" Also - FYI - Bohemians and beatniks ARE NOT the same as the 'unhoused' on 3rd. Jim Morrison didn't shit on the street. Jack Kerouac didn't stab people." As ignorant and rage-filled as your assertions are, they have no evidence to back them. How do you know what Jack or Jim may have gotten away with in their day? No one would shit on the street if there were adequate and accessible 24 hour bathrooms. And again, shitting on the street is already a crime. Last night night I saw a [Housed] bar patron pissing in the Rose Avenue parking lot. Are you prepared to be expelled from Venice in a Cattle Car, as part of the collective punishment which you seem to advocate? "BTW - nice attempt at defaming Mr Ryavec with that remark about HUD and Slum Lords. To my knowledge he has never been accused of anything related to any investment properties in Sylmar " Did you mention what he's doing with his property on Rialto, are you sure he's not breaking any "laws"? And just because he hasn't been accused yet doesn't mean he isn't getting away with something. But my comments were more general - SLUM LORDS often get away with stuff, becasue the LAPD spend their time harrassing the "homeless", and let the white collar criminals get away with all kinds of shit. Perhaps we need to invite 'Crackers - the Corporate Crime Fighting Chicken' to Venice, and see what he can dig up.
Another WorldView May 07, 2012 at 11:12 PM
"unlike Ms Lucks who has been accused of accepting funds from the social services mafia" Which crime Family are Non-profit Social Services providers aligned with? Was she taking these funds before she beat Mark Ryavec in a free and fair election, or afterwards? "[she] has had every chance to clear her name, and has been eerily silent on the issue." If she's accused of violating some Ethics Code, let's hear the statute you're referring to - otherwise why should she bother to address such spurious attacks. As we see from this board, Bizarro Venetians like yourself have an assinine aswer for everything, and no end to the amount of time which you're willing to spend hounding her (and the UnHoused) as part of Mark Ryavec's time-phased PR and dirty-tricks campaign.
ralph bellamy May 08, 2012 at 05:31 AM
Wow "concern" seems to be the buzz-name du jour. It seems clear to me that Mark Ryavec becomes pretty transparent to most people after about five minutes. He is a self-serving, arrogant, spoiled emotional infant who has discovered the momentary power available to alarmists who appeal to the darker angels of our nature and capitalize on our sense of fear and powerlessness. It's nothing new. Hitler...McCarthy...history is littered with such people. Like the proverbial "tar baby", the more you strike at him the more you become stuck in his energy field. Let's don't feed the vampire with any more of our emotional bleeding than absolutely necessary. The LAST thing he wants is "solutions", he just wants excuses to continue to persecute the weak and helpless among us. There ARE many good solutions for those of us who really want to try to help while resolving the problems. For example, there is a move to put bus-station style lockers in a corner of the Rose Ave / Ocean Front Walk County parking lot. This would give the homeless someplace to secure their stuff while out seeking work, toilets, shelter etc. A great idea. Another example - open the beach parking lots which are currently closed overnight and let the homeless "throw down" there for the night. They could be watched more easily and would not be a blight to residences. The point is there ARE solutions if we want them. Or...we can just keep on persecuting them....
ralph bellamy May 08, 2012 at 05:51 AM
MY "polarizing views"? Nothing polarizing about the vicious, slanderous verbal-attacks and dirty-tricks of the haters and up-scalers in this dialogue...right? Where did you learn the tactic of accusing the opposition of your own mis-deeds? Rush Limbaugh, I would guess. I am calling a spade a spade..."evil", "arrogant", "criminalization", "stealing", "persecution", "lovelessness", "mean spirited", "despicable"... these are not "polarizations", they are facts. If the shoe pinches, take it off. I appreciate your new-found conciliatory tone and I wish I could trust it, but it feels like posturing, not sincerity. And it's 40,000 homeless currently on the streets of LA, according to official estimates, and 10,000 of them are veterans. But, let's pretend it's 6,000...less than 50 of them occupy Rose Ave...so after you jail them or run them out of town and clean up your little Beverly Hills By The Sea, what do you plan to do with the other 5,950? Your offer of time, money and effort is all very noble, but it will not house 40,000 homeless, nor 6,000 - not you and ALL your friends...so - back to my original point...what do they do until there is enough shelter and services? But, I do agree with you...we need to work together in mutual respect and understanding and quit all the bickering. Let's "start somewhere" by acknowledging that these are - for the most part - human beings in trouble who need our help, understanding and...yes...our love. I'm down with that.
Another WorldView May 09, 2012 at 09:41 AM
"Nobody is 'cleansing' anything and nobody is conducting social experiments." I guess I can tell when you're lying by whether or not your lips are moving then. At common law, a denial is a traverse of the issue - something to be decided by a jury. I'll let the reader make up their minds about whether to believe you, or their lying eyes. "I want PEOPLE (all people) in HOUSES and not on the street." Too bad! You were not their Creator, and hence did not give them their Natural or Common Law rights, and hence you have no just power to remove - nor does any body of people or persons, no matter how large or miniscule. Majorities may no remove minority rights secured by the Constitution (whether of the state, STATE, or Federal). "I fully support programs that help people transition off the streets." So how I doubt that. Do you have a long history of working with local service providers? You seem to be attacking Ms. Lucks (elsewhere on this site) for doing just that. In any event, that only works for those who agree to accept the help offered - not that there is an adequate supply in the city for all of the UnHOused to do so - again see Jones V. City of LA for more details.
concernedneighbor May 09, 2012 at 09:04 PM
Ralph - I'm confused, what exactly you're 'fighting' for? If it's the right to set up a homeless encampment on 3rd ave and allow people to sleep on the street unmolested - that seems like a lose lose to me. The police have already moved folks off of 3rd street so seems like a loss - and even if you did 'win' people would still be sleeping on the street. We don't want people sleeping on the street - not because we hate homeless people - but because we'd rather see people in shelters/programs/homes. Yes - it is absolutely partly because having a homeless encampment on Rose lowers property values and increases noise/nuisance/crime - but ALSO because we want people to have a roof over their heads. We can be concerned about our personal property/safety AND want homeless people to live in a better/safer environment. I think you've been fooled by the Social Service folks. They are not your friends. You are somebody they can count as 'homeless' so they can get more funding. They don't want you to ever be in a better environment. They want you living on the street so they can point to you and say - 'see, we need more funding'. If you can agree that a good common end goal is to help people transition off the street - I think we can all agree that we need to work together on a path toward that end. If however you are seeking services that enable people to stay on the street comfortably and indefinitely than you will always be at odds with the 'housed' residents.
Mark Ryavec May 09, 2012 at 10:02 PM
Ralph, Might I suggest you put the lockers on your property and let these folks "throw down" in your back yard? These proposals will only perpetuate the current situation and invite others to join the current population. Have you noticed that Santa Monica does not allow this in Palisades Park, on San Vicente Boulevard or its beach parking lots? Yet Santa Monica successfully places scores of transients in housing while it has erased its image as an attractive environment in which to be without means. Mark
Another WorldView May 14, 2012 at 08:42 PM
"Nobody is blaming Bill for the nations homeless problem." Nobody but TUCO - whose poltical advertisement for the FAR-right above, is what you are both responding to. "People are disappointed that Bill hasn't protected Venice from the homeless onslaught like representatives of Santa Monica, MDR, Malibu, and the rest of the South Bay communities have." SM has many UnHoused, as does Malibu for that matter. I don't know why anyone would want to live in the Marina - except perhaps you CN. Enjoy. It's not that far a relocation (and the costs for the city might be less - than getting their ass handed-to-them by Carol Sobel, time and again). Or you could go to the South Bay, as it does have the sort of troglodytic-Conservative atmosphere, which you seem to enjoy. "The current homeless enablement programs" What program enabled you to move into Venice in the first place? Was it the "Zero-tolerance" campaign of the LAPD, circa the mid-late nineties? Perhaps we should call those "Fascist enablement programs". " ...and lax enforcement of current laws..." Jones V. The City of LA is THE LAW, guy. sorry if respecting peoples' rights is such an imposition upon you. "...are a magnet for homeless all over LA (and gutter punks from Seattle, Portland, Phoenix)." Do you have any statistics for this? And who are you to call anyone " gutter punks "? It reminds me of an old DK's song - "Nazi Punks...Nazi Punks...Nazi Punks...F___ OFF!"
Another WorldView May 14, 2012 at 09:56 PM
How do we "get rid" of fascistic malcontents like this Tuco? SM has done awfully by the UnHoused. That shamefull conduct should not be repeated in Venice. Nonetheless "Tuco", SM still has plenty of the UnHoused. They do a yearly count, so if you'd like to mix som efacts in with your hate and ignorance, you can go find the actual statistic. But the real statistic here is 1%. That's about what these right wingers amount to in the population of Venice - and, of course, it is for benefit of the economic 1%'ers, that these PR dissemblings are being trotted-out, yet again.
Another WorldView May 14, 2012 at 10:12 PM
We need a candidate to his left - not his right. This just in - Generalisimo Franciso Franco is STILL dead.
Another WorldView May 14, 2012 at 10:15 PM
"Ralph - I'm confused" - I agree. I'm fighting for people to have their rights respected by the gentrifying carpetbaggers who've taken over our corrupt local "government". "If it's the right to set up a homeless encampment on 3rd ave and allow people to sleep on the street unmolested - that seems like a lose lose to me. " People set up their own tents, I'm simply assuming that they have the right to exist, in the place where they happen to be. I don't see how that's a loss for anyone. "The police have already moved folks off of 3rd street so seems like a loss" You're misinformed about the situation on 3rd st. I saw at least two dozen folks there last night. I'm not Charlie Sheen, I don't constantly check the win/loss column. When I do, I make sure that the score is accurate. "We don't want people sleeping on the street - not because we hate homeless people - but because we'd rather see people in shelters/programs/homes." So you say. But there are no shelter beds anywhere near the Westside, not everyone qualifies for them, or wants to live under the rules and treatment they receive in them, and I take the position that cannot be treated coercively, to satisfy your (stated - as opposed to observed,) desires. Great, well your pal Ryavec seems to have the Councilman's ear, so I wish you luck with that, assuming your right in your assessment - but that doesn't seem like a reasonable assumption.
Another WorldView May 14, 2012 at 10:16 PM
"Yes - it is absolutely partly because having a homeless encampment on Rose lowers property values " I think that is the long and the short of it. if you cared about these folks, in reality, you wouldn't first have pushed them out of their cars, and onto the streets - from which you now want them removed, as well. It's not like they can live out in the unincorporated areas of the county - as we saw just a few months ago, with the removal of a shanty-town out there, by County officials. "increases noise/nuisance/crime " Housed folks are noisy too. Housed folks commit crimes, too - though the presence of walls between them and the world, mean that they are more likely to get away with it. I find the wave of gentrifiers seeking to remove their neighbors to skid row or the valley to be a nuisance. "we want people to have a roof over their heads." Well the Storage space between 3rd &4th , Rose and Sunset, seems like anawfully big land-bank. Perhaps we can use that to create the no-income housing that these folks need. I'll leave it ot you to rally your neighbors to the cause. That done, and with Ryavec's backing, certainly Bill will be close behind. "We can be concerned about our personal property/safety" People sleeping on the street are no threat to your property or safety.
Another WorldView May 14, 2012 at 10:17 PM
"I think you've been fooled by the Social Service folks." Wrong. "They are not your friends." I've met some of them. They seem like decent folks - unlike the disingenuous carpetbaggers and gentrifiers who've been hijacking our local political process, for more than a decade now. " You are somebody they can count as 'homeless' so they can get more funding." What makes you think that I'm homeless? "They don't want [them] to ever be in a better environment. They want [them] living on the street so they can point to you and say - 'see, we need more funding'. I call bullshit, on that. MOre likely than that, is that Ryavec (and the grouping around him) is(are) acting as a shill for large real estate speculators, who 'bought low', thanks to the character and 'ambiance' of the neighborhood (which has always had its fair share of the UnHoused and working class folks - in my lifetime), and now want to 'sell high' after removing the folks that helped them buy-in 'on the cheap'.
Another WorldView May 14, 2012 at 10:27 PM
Who's been in Venice longer Mark - you or Abraham? Answer: Abraham. So perhaps it is you who should find somewhere else to "throw down" (the guantlet - on behalf of greedy real estate speculators). You have no roots in the community - and yet you want to displace those that do. "[Ryavecs] proposals will only perpetuate the current situation and invite others to join the current population." We seem to have become a magnet in Venice for greasy right-wing propagandists, advancing a poltical agenda out-of-touch with real Venetians. The fact that you can't tell the difference between Venetians and Santa Monicans (particularly North-Siders, who keep those South of Montana as a colonized and repressed people), shows your true stripes, Mark. Why don't go there, and save their Post Office, before you encourage more of your clones to emigrate to Venice. While you are there, you can find out the real numbers of the UnHoused in SM. They do a yearly count. But I guess that what you want is simply that the poor be invisible.


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something