Some new home made signage is up on Ocean Front Walk. Has the boardwalk become just a big bland swapmeet/ flea market? What do you think?

Ocean Front Walk in combination with the Oakwood Rec Center Crack Dealers association and high homeless rate help slow the sterilization of Venice from becoming the next Manhattan Beach/Santa Monica lovechild.

But sticking to topic here, OFW is sleazy.

For the most part our "fore fathers" were pot smokers, you tool

kevin said:

i really am confused about our first amendment rights.  did the forefathers really have shitty shit and pot smokers in mind when guaranteeing our right to speech?  why is this considered a free speech zone?  homeless losers and drug addicts = free speech?  

the boardwalk has become unruly and disgusting and totally irrelevant.  it is filth personified.  i don't want to the grove in my backyard, or another starbucks, but man, if my choices are the way it is now or the grove, bring on the crate and barrel.  (ideally, it would be another abbot kinney-local shops and local shoppers.  but without an anchor store with massive resources, i don't think this is possible in such a downtrodden area).

I agree. Some middle ground is needed. Nobody wants it to become SM or MB ( a few random stabbings will easily scare them away.) But the concept

of "Saving Venice" , one has to ask, which Venice are you referring to? Venice was a place of artists, writers, filmakers and musicians. Isn't this the Venice you want? Since when was Venice about drug addiction, gangs,homelessness, and hopelessly lost mental patients?

I'm a 4th generation coastal Los Angeleno &, though I know this is not a popular viewpoint here, I must admit that I am oddly okay with the idea of OFW becoming a cross between Abbot Kinney & 3rd Street. Provided they incorporate the public parking options to go with it. Yeah I avoid 3rd street as much as possible yet, though I live just blocks from the beach here, I drive every morning to surf elsewhere. I have avoided my own local beach entirely for years. It has become more frightening & well icky than I can ever remember it being in the past. I agree that it was never squeaky clean but that's not how we roll here in Venice. I mean if we wanted that we'd slap on some Rock & Republic skinny jeans, Louboutin ankle boots, a Hermes scarf & go cruise Rodeo drive. *shiver*

Dude, it was more than just the failing architecture that inspired the demolition of St Marks and the Gas House and the rest.  

The city wanted to dissuade the youth culture from congregating and several court cases arose regarding city ordinances that

intended to do just that.  One hotel offered free rooms to "poets" and thus created a huge crash pad the beats. 

The city even addressed neighbors complaining about drum circles back in the early 60's.

Here's a fine group of youngsters protesting one such ordinance in 1965:

http://unitproj.library.ucla.e…..tID=216433

As for the sailors… do your homework.  Venice was always a popular destination known for the loose morals and poor police oversight. 

Do you suppose that handsome Navy gent cavorting in the mural in the post office didn't come with friends?

west washington said:

Dude, it was more than just the failing architecture that inspired the demolition of St Marks and the Gas House and the rest.  

The city wanted to dissuade the youth culture from congregating and several court cases arose regarding city ordinances that

intended to do just that.  One hotel offered free rooms to "poets" and thus created a huge crash pad the beats. 

The city even addressed neighbors complaining about drum circles back in the early 60's.

Here's a fine group of youngsters protesting one such ordinance in 1965:

http://unitproj.library.ucla.e…..tID=216433

As for the sailors… do your homework.  Venice was always a popular destination known for the loose morals and poor police oversight. 

Do you suppose that handsome Navy gent cavorting in the mural in the post office didn't come with friends?

d00d, where does it say that the fine group of youngsters depicted in the photo protesting are from venice?

Can you not read the photo caption below the image?

Thing #1:

On 30 November 1964, citing 3 years' worth of complaints from the Venice Ocean Front Improvement Association, Karl Rundberg, whose improbably drawn district included both Venice and Pacific Palisades, introduced a resolution calling for the a ban on"the beating of drums and the playing of other instruments on beaches and recreational areas under city control."  Translation: no more bongos on the beach.   The issue was not music, he asid, but noise, particularily along the stretch of beach where Dudley Ave met OFW.  

Thing #2:

The attempted ban on Bongos was one of several battles in the war of the Beatniks vs. "Realestateniks" (as they were dubbed at the time).  

Under an amendment to The Housing Act of 1964, the Federal Housing Authority had been granted right to underwrite long term low cost rehabilitation loans for city property owners.  To the local business community that ment the dawn of a new day for Venice; Mayor Yorty was even talking about bulldozing the place and starting over.  But the agency had refused to allocate funds for Venice "in its present status."

Read:  get rid of the filthy beatniks and you'll get your development loans.

Thing #3:

Library Cards are Awesome.  Perhaps you should get one.

((***Block quotes above courtesy of John Arthur Maynard's "Venice West: The Beat Generation and Southern Califrornia") 

Which question? The question of 'where it was stated the people in the photograph were from Venice?' Answer: in the caption of the photograph, duh.

Or the slightly more desperate, nit-picky question of how it could be known what these youngsters were protesting in the first place?  Well the dates match up from the City Council records and the fact the LA Times covered the event (it's an LA Times photo) makes it a pretty sure guess.  The council finally resolved the anti-bongo issue on July 2 of 1965 (11 to 2 vote for those counting–  Bradly and Bernardi dissenting) The image is dated June 24th which would put it right around the time of the council deliberations. 

Television and newspapers covered the protestors who had taken to drumming and dancing at city hall–  doing the "Rundleberg Bounce" in protest of the city councilman.  I didn't realize I needed to connect ALL those dots for you.

But Salty, as fun as it's been responding to your substanceless little chirps, my point in bringing all this up was an attempt to bring some historical perspective to the debate on this particular forum.   There has always been conflict between the property owners and the "artist types" on OFW…  it is a rich and interesting history, actually, with very little in the way of 'right' wrong' sides to the argument.  Stuart Perkoff, the now revered Venice poet, for example, was BOTH and artist and a "homeless drug addict"  (to bring up a distinction made by an earlier poster).  

So, just because a select number of creative types who have worked in the Venice area have gained enough notoriety to actually buy property in the neighborhood– that somehow negates the fact that for over half a century there has been tensions between artists and property owners around OFW?    

Dang Salty, there ain't a library big enough to straighten out that bass-akwards logic.

Salt,  

Can I talk to you out here in the hall for a sec.?

Thanks.

You see, this last post confused me.  I failed to see the point in how you strung those last four sentences together– unless it was some misguided attempt at haiku wisdom or something.  

But then, reviewing this correspondence as a whole,  I realized you were never actually bringing anything to the conversation– just kind of "knee jerking" reactions and firing off 'stray' opinions without any specific point to make at all.  

Yes, one learns many things in a great many places (libraries etc., etc.) but might I be so bold as to suggest next time you participate in a discussion– learn to actually have a point before you open your mouth.